Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

WEYMOUTH AND PORTLAND WATER SPORTS BILL [Lords]

As amended, considered.

Ordered.
That Standing Order No. 205 relating to Private Business (Notice of third reading) be suspended and that the Bill be now read the Third time.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown signified.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed with amendments.

BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL (By Order)

Order for Third Reading read.

To be read the Third time upon Tuesday 15th October.

MERSEYSIDE METROPOLITAN RAILWAY BILL (By Order)

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

To be considered upon Tuesday 15th October.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE

Dockyards (Civilian Work)

Mr. Viggers: asked the secretary of State for Defence what proposals are currently under consideration by Her Majesty's Government for the civilian use of Royal Naval dockyards.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy (Mr. Frank Judd): Because of the heavy load of naval work the Royal dockyards can undertake only a limited amount of civilian work. A number of inquiries are, however, being considered, but for commercial reasons I cannot at this stage disclose details of them or the firms concerned.

Mr. Viggers: I thank the hon. Gentleman for reading his ministerial reply. Can he give us more information? Who will run the dockyards if they are to be operated as industrial concerns? What industries will be operated in them?
Above all, what regional benefits will be allowed to the dockyards which are outside the normal regional areas to enable them to compete on equal terms with yards in the North and West, or is the whole thing a smokescreen to prevent fear of unemployment as a result of defence cuts?

Mr. Judd: It is too early to say what the outcome of the defence review will be, but our policy is to ensure that if any surplus dockyard capacity were to arise it would be put fully to productive use in the national interest under present control.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Can the Minister state the position with regard to the amount of civilian working at the Rosyth naval dockyard?

Mr. Judd: The position for Rosyth is exactly as for the other dockyards. Our future policy is as defined in my previous answer.

Oman

Mr. Robin F. Cook: asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many commissioned and non-commissioned Servicemen, and from what forces, are currently serving in Oman.

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Roy Mason): About 200 volunteers from all three Services are serving on loan with the forces of the Sultan of Oman. A number of Army and RAF personnel are based at Salalah and at the RAF staging post on Masirah island. It is not customary to make public detailed deployments of Her Majesty's Forces.

Mr. Cook: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Can he also give the House the latest total of British casualties in this war? Can he clarify how many members of the Special Air Services are currently stationed in Oman and how, if they are there for personnel training, from time to time one of them is killed in a clash with rebel forces? Does my right hon. Friend agree that this sorry war, now in its eleventh year, is one of the most pathetic examples of the major world blocs playing two tiny nations off against each other? Therefore, will my right hon. Friend seek an international agreement to limit the supply to both sides of advisers and equipment, without which the war could not continue?

Mr. Mason: The men concerned are volunteers, and the Sultan is bearing all the costs. My hon. Friend is right: a unit of the SAS is in the Oman giving training assistance to the Sultan's forces. Occasionally there are casualties because they come into conflict with the rebels in the area, but I cannot give the exact figures of the casualties.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is the Secretary of State aware that his hon. Friend seemed to show more glee than regret at British casualties? [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman cares to withdraw what he said, well and good. If I am mistaken, so much the better. Is the right hon. Gentleman of the opinion that Masirah Island is an essential point in the British defence strategy?

Mr. Mason: I would not at this stage stress to what extent it is essential. We are using it at present as a Royal Air Force staging post. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman misunderstood my hon. Friends concern. I think he was registering concern that British Service men might be getting killed in the Oman. There is a conflict there, and I think he

was expressing concern that the quicker the conflict was ended, the better.

Crowd Control (Police Training)

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a statement about the use of military premises in the training of civilian police officers in techniques of crowd control.

The Minister of State for Defence (Mr. William Rodgers): In agreement with the Home Office, we consider on its merits any request from the police for the use of Service premises and facilities in crowd control training.

Mr. Huckfield: Does my hon. Friend recall that just before the miners' strike several examples were reported of soldiers and police training together in what was then euphemistically called crowd control? Can he give the House an indication of the extent to which it is still carried on? Can he also give an undertaking that the whole situation will be much more seriously kept in check in future?

Mr. Rodgers: I can certainly tell my hon. Friend that this is a matter which is very carefully considered. I can also say quite plainly that there is no question of there being any joint training of the Armed Forces and the police in the way he suggests.

Dr. Glyn: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that co-operation between the civilian police and the military is very good training for some emergencies that might occur and that good liaison between the two bodies is of benefit to both?

Mr. Rodgers: I think that we must treat these matters in a relaxed and sensible way. What I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Huckfield) is true. There is no joint training, nor do I think that there should be such training.

Mr. Evelyn King: Does not the Army frequently fulfil what is commonly regarded as a civilian rôle? Is it not doing so in Northern Ireland? Is it not desirable that the Army should be trained for what it has to do?

Mr. Rodgers: First I said nothing about not training the Army for rôles


which it has to fulfil. Secondly, there is a great deal of difference between the rôle that the Army carries out in Northern Ireland, with the full support of both sides of the House, and the sort of dangers about which my hon. Friend was concerned.

Expenditure (Review)

Mr. Cryer: asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he is likely to announce the review of defence expenditure.

Mr. Ford: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he now in a position to provide further information about the progress of his defence review.

Mr. Ioan Evans: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what proposals he intends making on defence expenditure following the defence review; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Goodhart: asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make an interim statement about his review of defence expenditure.

Mr. Mason: The review which I announced on 21st March is still in progress, and I am not yet in a position to make a statement on its outcome. An announcement will be made as soon as possible.

Mr. Cryer: Does my right hon. Friend accept that as he is reviewing nuclear weapons expenditure it would be fair and consistent for him to make strong representations to the French, to oppose their tests in the atmosphere and to oppose tests whether they be British, French, Chinese or Russian? Further, does he accept that it would be desirable if he impressed upon his hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of the Environment that it would be better for him to be consistent in his opposition to the detestable regime in South Africa?

Mr. Mason: On my hon. Friend's first point, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has already done so. On his second point, I draw my hon. Friend's attention to what my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of the Environment has said.

Mr. Goodhart: As the right hon. Gentleman has said that he will consult our allies on the terms of the defence review, will he consult the British people? Will he give a firm assurance that the review will he published before the General Election in view of the rumours that it will lead to a withdrawal from the Cyprus base? Will he say now that there will be no withdrawal of our forces from Cyprus? Surely even Her Majesty's Government must realise that to withdraw from the base now would lead to further instability.

Mr. Mason: I do not know when the General Election will take place so I cannot state whether my White Paper will be before it or after it. All I can say is that the work on the White Paper is complex and is taking longer than I imagined. The question of Cyprus is subject to the review, but we have just seen how important a role our forces play in helping to maintain peace and stability on the island.

Mr. Ford: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that when he comes to recommend the defence cuts there are two matters to consider carefully in the balance? The first is the effect of the cuts upon civilians employed in Britain and the second is the political question of how far the British people are prepared to see Britain's defence posture weakened.

Mr. Mason: When anybody is considering cuts in defence expenditure I always expect that there will be two strongly expounded points of view. My hon. Friend represents one such point of view. I shall take on board what he says about the review because naturally employment considerations are playing a part in the review. That is one reason for the review being slowed down.

Mr. Buck: Will the right hon. Gentleman be more specific? Is it not true that the internal papers are now all prepared? Is he not considering what he feels should be done about them? Will he be specific about when he will start consulting our allies and, simultaneous with that, when he will consult the House?

Mr. Mason: I should like to know how the hon. and learned Gentleman knows that internal papers are already prepared. [HON. MEMBERS: "Are they?"] The ramifications of the documents that are


before me are so complex and wide-ranging that it will take some time before Ministers will be able to peruse them and to consider the options that are available. I cannot be more honest and frank than that.

Mr. Evans: When my right hon. Friend announces the outcome of his review, will he continue to have regard to Britain's balance of payments? Will he continue to realise that other countries in Europe with which we are associated have an embarrassing balance of payments surplus? Does he realise that it would be better if the people who are now engaged in defending this island were producing exports rather than remaining a charge on the Exchequer?

Mr. Mason: I appreciate what my hon. Friend says, but it does not necessarily follow that if there were major cuts in defence expenditure those who were declared unemployed or redundant would immediately be able to go into export based industries where we badly require them. That is one of the problems of the review.

Mr. Peter Walker: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he has now had five months to make a review of defence expenditure, the review being based upon a Labour Party pledge to make substantial cuts in expenditure? Does he accept that there has been total uncertainty in the Armed Services and in all the companies concerned? For the right hon. Gentleman to say that the reason for further delay is that Ministers need a lot more time to peruse the papers before them reeks of lethargy or of putting off the review until after the General Election.

Mr. Mason: First, Ministers have not had the papers placed before them. This is a massive exercise. We are examining every commitment abroad from the Far East right through to NATO. We are also considering every capability of Her Majesty's Forces. Further, we have to consider to what extent there will be job redundancies and job prospects lost as a result of the review. The consequences in certain areas and upon certain firms have to be considered. It is right that the matter should be considered calmly and rationally. Further, it is right that it should take time.

Mr. Goodhart: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of most of the right hon. Gentleman's replies, I beg to give notice that I shall seek leave to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

Western Europe

Mr. Blaker: asked the Secretary of State for Defence in what ways he expects Great Britain's continued membership of the European Communities to affect Great Britain's defence situation, in particular in relation to Western Europe.

Mr. Mason: The Treaty of Rome has no defence content and there is no discussion of defence matters in the framework of the European Communities. Her Majesty's Government attach great importance to European defence co-operation within the North Atlantic Alliance, and in particular to the work of the Eurogroup.

Mr. Blaker: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Atlantic Declaration which was signed last month by his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, along with his colleagues from the North Atlantic Alliance, declares that the further progress towards unity that the members of the EEC are determined to make could be beneficial for the defence of the North Atlantic Alliance as a whole? Will he study the document and draw it to the attention of all his colleagues?

Mr. Mason: No doubt all my hon. Friends who are following the negotiations within the EEC will have in mind the new document on the reformation of the Alliance and the transatlantic link.

Mr. Ronald Atkins: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the sharing of the defence burden among the Western community is very unequal? Further, will he bear in mind that the £400 million a year that it costs us to keep British troops in Germany, three-quarters of which adds to our serious imbalance of payments, cannot be compared with Germany's great surplus and the benefit that German and not British manufacturers derive from the British troops?

Mr. Mason: My hon. Friend is fully aware that one of our starting points for the review was the gross national product figures for Britain compared with the


corresponding figures for the Western European countries, especially France and Germany. When we take into account the NATO statistics and when we consider them in terms of defence expenditure, it is apparent that we are spending more than other countries. That is one reason for the review. I must advise my hon. Friend that the central front happens to be the front of our nation too. We have to pay the price if we are to maintain stability in that area.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the closer we get with our European partners in the community on defence matters as well as on economic and foreign policies, the better it will be for the defence of Europe? It is not only the central front which is important to this country but also the northern front. What is the Secretary of State doing to strengthen that front?

Mr. Mason: I do not have to do any more at the moment to strengthen the northern front, but I will take into consideration what the hon. Gentleman says. No doubt he has played a part at Western European Union and the Council of Europe, and many of their papers, documents and presentations have been helpful to defence policy.

Mr. Molloy: Does my right hon. Friend agree that in our lifetime all these other countries of the EEC have owed a great debt of gratitude to the United Kingdom? Does he agree also that in this nuclear bomb-laden world the essential thing about all defence policy is that it must be assisted by intelligent foreign policy, because if foreign policy goes wrong and nuclear explosions take place there will be no more EEC or any other community but only dust? That must be the quintessence of all defence policy.

Mr. Mason: I agree that defence policy follows foreign policy. In our foriegn policy we have been trying to stress internationally that more countries should join the Non-Proliferation Treaty—the "NPT club". I am sorry that some have refused to do so and have recently exploded nuclear devices in the atmosphere. This has prompted much international concern.

Mr. Marten: If it is the fact that defence policy follows foreign policy, does not the right hon. Gentleman recall the rather weak attitude of the EEC during

the Yom Kippur war? Did not that attitude nearly disrupt NATO at the time? Therefore, is not the Common Market slightly disruptive of peace? Should we not look at this matter through the eyes of NATO and not have anything to do with the Common Market?

Mr. Mason: That was a rather odd and circuitous route from the Yom Kippur war back to the Common Market. I thought that the strangest aspect of that period was the misunderstanding which took place between the United States and NATO.

Northern Ireland

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a statement on the operations in Northern Ireland

Mr. Mason: Throughout Northern Ireland the Army is helping the RUC to maintain order and to bring men of violence to justice.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: With regard to Cyprus and other vital British commitments, may not the defence review have to result in National Service unless there is some expedited progress in Northern Ireland, where the emergency has gone on for a long time? Will the right hon. Gentleman consider with his colleagues in the Cabinet the need, in view of the failure of the Irish Republic to extradite terrorists, to seal the border? Should not serious thought be given to improving the security situation by military and political means?

Mr. Mason: I shall not rise to the bait and the spectre of National Service. I do not think that that is necessary. Despite the Cyprus requirements, we have managed to maintain 15,000 men in Northern Ireland. Although it is a strain on Her Majesty's Forces we are able to do it.
If the hon. Gentleman doubts whether our security forces are managing in Northern Ireland, I will tell him that since the beginning of this year 786 persons have been arrested and charged with terrorist offences, and 881 weapons, 106,844 rounds of ammunition and 33,496 lb. of explosive have been seized. Goodness knows what Northern Ireland would have been like if all that had been let loose as well.

Mr. Kilfedder: Will the right hon. Gentleman reply to the charge which is frequently made that the Special Air Service is operating in Northern Ireland? Secondly, with regard to the admission by the Army that the IRA has been listening in to Army telephone calls, can the right hon. Gentleman explain why so-called innocent calls were made with a scrambling device? Is this likely to occur again?

Mr. Mason: No units of the SAS are operating in Northern Ireland. I give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. There is no secure speech on telephones. The arrest of Brendan Hughes proved that the Provisionals' tapping of telephones was not very successful.

Offshore Oil and Gas Installations

Mr. Peter Walker: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what action he has now taken to protect oil and gas installations in the seas surrounding the United Kingdom.

Mr. Judd: Protection from external attack forms part of national and NATO defence planning. As regards peace time, I refer the right hon. Member to my reply on 1st July—[Vol. 876, c. 36.]—to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) in which I explained that the precise rôle of the Armed Services would depend on the circumstances. Naturally, the Ministry of Defence is constantly seeking ways to ensure that the response of the Armed Services to any contingency is made with the greatest possible effect.

Mr. Walker: Who is now responsible for co-ordinating all the various organisations involved with such defence? Will the hon. Gentleman assure us that never again will a Soviet spy ship be able to go alongside one of our oil rigs and take whatever pictures it wants?

Mr. Judd: There is a later Question about that matter. The installations to which the right hon. Gentleman refers in his Question are under the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom. The responsibility for them thus rests with the same authorities as would be responsible on land, including owners, the police, other civil authorities and the Armed Forces. We therefore regard the close co-ordination of the plans of various Government

Departments as essential, and the Government take collective responsibility for it.

Mr. Dalyell: Does my hon. Friend recall that security at 27 of the 29 British oil rigs is at present in the doubtless capable hands of the Chief Constable of Aberdeen? Can my right hon. Friend enlarge on the undertaking, given on the Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill yesterday, that the Government will look into this whole question?

Mr. Judd: I endorse what my hon. Friend has said about the Chief Constable of Aberdeen, whose hands are certainly capable. I underline the seriousness with which the Government treat this subject by drawing attention to the very successful seminar, held under Ministry of Defence auspices and attended by hon. Members from both sides of the House, amongst others with specialist responsibilities, on 23rd July. At the seminar the Government said that we would not relax our efforts to improve all the time the co-ordination of Government policy as a whole.

Mr. Sproat: What pressure is the hon. Gentleman bringing on the oil companies to increase their own security of rigs and platforms?

Mr. Judd: This is an important aspect of our overall policy. We are in constant close touch and liaison with the oil companies. We hope that they will be able to play a full part, particularly in aspects of design, in contributing towards effective defence.

Mr. Douglas Henderson: Is the Under-Secretary of State aware that his remarks about the Chief Constable of Aberdeen will be warmly received in the North-East of Scotland and in Scotland generally because these rigs lie under the jurisdiction of Scots law? What consultation is the hon. Gentleman having with the Norwegian Government on this matter, since they must have similar problems?

Mr. Judd: Naturally we consult our allies about the whole policy of the defence of North Sea installations. This is essentially an international matter and one which cannot be handled simply on a national basis.

Mr. William Hamilton: Is my hon. Friend aware that if we had a Scottish


navy, as proposed by the Scottish National Party, all these problems would be solved?

Mr. Walker: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could tell us the strength of the navy of the Chief Constable of Aberdeen. Is he aware that many of us who attended that very interesting seminar came away with the feeling that the one thing lacking was co-ordination? It is not good enough to say that the Government as a whole are co-ordinating. Will the hon. Gentleman ask the Government to consider appointing a person of substantial authority to co-ordinate these activities?

Mr. Judd: When we became the Government earlier this year, one of the problems which deeply concerned us was the need to improve co-ordination. We have since taken steps to improve co-ordination. We see it as a collective Government responsibility, and Ministers in the various Departments concerned share that responsibility as a front line as part of their general policy.

Iran (Exhibition)

Mr. Warren: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what results have been obtained from the recent exhibition sponsored by Her Majesty's Government in Iran of British defence material.

Mr. William Rodgers: It is too early to measure results in terms of contracts actually achieved, but some of the exhibitors have been asked to supply quotations.

Mr. Warren: I thank the Minister for that reply. Will he give an assurance that Iran will be allowed to purchase that for which it contracts from this Government, and will he ensure that Iran does not suffer the current fate of the Indian Government, which after many years of bargaining with the British Government for the supply of Jaguar aircraft to India has found that the British Government are refusing to support the loan which would enable the exports to be made?

Mr. Rodgers: Without accepting the analogy that the hon. Gentleman mentions, I can give the assurance he seeks.

Dockyards

Miss Fookes: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will now announce his plans for the future of the Royal Naval Dockyards.

Mr. Judd: I have nothing to add to what I told the House on 21st May 1974—[Vol. 874, cc. 116–7.]. The naval dockyards will continue to fulfil their rôle of supporting the Fleet.

Miss Fookes: Does the hon. Gentleman accept, as a Member representing a dockyard constituency, that he is telling us nothing and that we have now waited five months but still know nothing about the future of the dockyards?

Mr. Judd: I would have thought that the hon. Lady, with her intimate knowledge of the dockyards and their problems, together with her hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers), would recognise that at the moment the dockyards have a full load of naval work which stretches into the future. We on this side of the House have every confidence in the ability of the labour force in the dockyards to continue serving the interests of the Navy effectively into the future and we believe that they will take on any other national priority which may be appropriate from time to time.

Mr. Hooley: Has my hon. Friend made progress in his calculations of how far the naval dockyards might in future assist in the construction of the necessary equipment to exploit North Sea oil, of which the Navy will be the defender.

Mr. Judd: I thank my hon. Friend for his continuing constructive interest in this matter. I can assure him that specific interdepartmental machinery is now established to deal with this problem.

Mr. Buck: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm whether there are to be defence cuts within the region of £1,000 million, or even hundreds of millions of pounds? Will he say whether in the light of such cuts closure of a dockyard would be likely? Will he turn his mind to this matter and indicate whether what I say is the case and say on which dockyard he is focusing?

Mr. Judd: I know of no plans to cut defence by £1,000 million. As we have repeatedly told the House, we do not share the doubts and the misgivings of some Opposition Members about the capabilities of the labour force in our dockyards. We believe that the skilled men in the dockyards, supported by unskilled labourers with an established


reputation, will serve the national economy on a whole range of important priorities in the future should the need arise.

Combat Aircraft

Mr. Wiggin: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what alternatives to multi-role combat aircraft exist in the different roles which are planned for the aircraft by the RAF; and what is their cost.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force (Mr. Brynmor John): No single aircraft exists or is in prospect which is a practicable alternative to the MRCA.

Mr. Wiggin: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that any proposal or even the hint of a proposal to cut the numbers of aircraft that we might be taking under this collaborative venture would seriously damage our reputation as collaborators in international arms ventures at a time when the Secretary of State has rightly reiterated the virtues of such agreements?

Mr. John: We have in consultation with our allies determined a certain number of aircraft that we will take. Any numbers of aircraft must be subject to the comprehensive defence review which my right hon. Friend has mentioned, but certainly we are well aware of the importance of this collaborative venture.

Mr. MacFarquhar: What is the present state of the MRCA project? Is my hon. Friend aware that a group of Labour Members flew to Germany in mid-May to be shown what was clearly billed as the golden plane of the Western world but that we have since heard only reports of engine problems and soaring costs? Can my hon. Friend confirm or deny those reports?

Mr. John: There has been a manufacturing rather than a design fault of a minor nature with the engine, but I am confident that the aircraft will now make its first flight shortly.

Mr. Wall: Will the hon. Gentleman take the opportunity to deny the allegation made by the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) that these aircraft will now cost £9 million each?

Mr. John: There are a number of different conventions on how to cost aeroplanes, but on the convention used in Britain I can say, as I said in the House in May, that such a figure is wildly exaggerated.

Harrier Aircraft

Mr. Hal Miller: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what interest has been shown by what other countries in the advanced Harrier; and if he will take steps to ensure that it is produced in the United Kingdom.

Mr. John: The United States have shown particular interest in the advanced Harrier and we are engaged with them in joint feasibility studies. No firm decision on the development and production of the aircraft has yet been taken by either Government.

Mr. Miller: Will the hon. Gentleman seek to ensure that when the decision is taken a reasonable proportion of the production will take place in this country, thus ensuring, particularly for firms in my constituency, the retention of skilled design teams which have been so painstakingly built up?

Mr. John: The retention of work will depend on the decisions that are finally taken. I know that Hawker Siddeley and Rolls-Royce have played full parts in the joint studies and that they have full commercial agreements with their American counterparts, which should ensure what the hon. Gentleman wants.

Mr. Dalyell: Can my hon. Friend comment on the report by Air Commodore Donaldson that Harriers will be based on oil rigs?

Mr. John: I have difficulty in speculating on the truth of Air Commodore Donaldson's reports. This is an entirely different Question from the one dealing with the advanced Harrier, which is in an entirely different time scale.

Mr. Wall: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will now make a statement on the introduction of the naval Harrier and the export orders that such a decision would produce.

Mr. Judd: I have nothing to add to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) on 21st May


—[Vol. 874, col. 160]. We remain determined to take a decision as soon as possible within the context of the Defence Review.

Mr. Wall: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is a grave danger that this country will lose the advantage it gained through producing the most technically-advanced aircraft in the world unless we order it for the Royal Navy very quickly? Has he estimated the total gain accruing to this country in export orders for this aircraft if we produce it for our Navy?

Mr. Judd: We recognise the value of the maritime V/STOL aircraft. I cannot anticipate the outcome of the current review. Naturally the Navy is keen to have the maritime Harrier and this professional view will be taken fully into account in the context of the wider considerations which must form part of the Defence Review. In the context of that review, sales prospects will also receive attention.

Mr. Emery: Will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance to the House and to the workers at Hawker Siddeley that before the Defence Review reaches fruition there will be no laying off of men employed on Harrier production because the firm is short of contracts?

Mr. Judd: In assessing the effect on Hawker Siddeley I should like to emphasise that the design team is being kept together and that design work is at present continuing.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I draw your attention—

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman has a point of order I would much prefer that he raises it at the end of Question Time.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: This concerns the Questions we have just dealt with, Mr. Speaker. I know that Prime Minister's Questions are important. Nevertheless, we have got through only about 19 of the Questions on the Order Paper tabled for the Secretary of State for Defence. Is this not an absolutely incredible performance? Can you not protect the rights of back benchers so that we can go a little faster?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I noticed that the hon. Gentleman rose many times to try to ask supplementary questions.

Cyprus

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he is satisfied with the deployment of British forces in Cyprus; and whether he will make a statement.

Major-General d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he is satisfied with the security of the Cyprus base.

Mr. Mason: The resident garrison in Cyprus was reinforced by two Royal Marine Commandos on Sunday 21st July followed by armoured car squadrons and an infantry battalion together with support personnel over the next few days. A number of Her Majesty's ships also deployed to the area. The level of forces required to ensure the security of the Cyprus base is being kept under review. The reinforcement was carried out with great efficiency and reflects much credit on the officers and men concerned in the planning and execution of the operation.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Following on the tribute to the work of the three Services for evacuating and looking after tourists and other British subjects, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman how many people now remain to be moved home and whether consideration has been given to the use of a Services cable communication to enable inquiries to be made from this country by people who are still worried about relatives and friends remaining in Cyprus?

Mr. Mason: I will consider the point about cable communication which until now has not been drawn to my attention. With regard to evacuation, we have already brought home 8,000 people, consisting of British residents and tourists of 49 different nations as well as some Service dependants. We have now started to evacuate about 1,200 dependants of Servicemen who should be living outside the sovereign base areas, bringing them home if their Service husbands are within three months of the end of their tours. That should satisfy the situation for the time being.

Major-General d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: I thank the Secretary of State for his answer.


One of the reinforcements which went out was an armoured car squadron from my own regiment. Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm the statement today in The Times that the United Nations force is to be reintroduced in the future and, if so, what proportion of the reinforcement will be British?

Mr. Mason: A request was received a few days ago from the United Nations Secretary General for the United Nations peace-keeping force in Cyprus to be increased. Her Majesty's Government responded quickly to the request and immediately released 600 men, including Coldstream Guards and 50 Ferret cars, which means that our United Nations contingent is about 1,350 strong and is the biggest unit in the peace-keeping rôle in Cyprus.

Mr. Greville Janner: Can my right hon. Friend comment on the allegation made by a constituent of mine who was brought home from Cyprus that we were very slow off the mark? Will he indicate some of the difficulties which created this situation?

Mr. Mason: I thought we were cautious and safe. We had to make a calculation about when would be the right time for United Kingdom troops to move through Larnaka, Limassol, Famagusta and Kyrenia to bring in British residents as well as foreign tourists. If we had gone in prematurely it might have given an indication that we were possibly working in alliance with the Turks and many people might have been killed escaping to the sovereign base areas. I think that we took a calculated risk and were cautious, and in the end it proved to be safe and sure. There has been only one casualty involving the United Nations force and a small child of 10 who was killed in crossfire.

Mr. Goodhart: While joining in the tributes to the magnificent work done by our Services in carrying out the evacuation of civilians, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to say what compensation will he paid to those Service families whose homes have been looted following their withdrawal to the sovereign base areas?

Mr. Mason: I cannot give a figure but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that I have already broadcast on the forces network

to Cyprus to give assurances of that kind to those of our Service men and their dependants who might have been adversely affected.

Mr. Bagier: What advice is my right hon. Friend giving to tour operators who are still reported to be taking holidaymakers out to the island?

Mr. Mason: That is not within my province. As my hon. Friend will know, the Foreign Office has been giving advice to the Association of British Travel Agents. Most of its members have been heeding that advice.

Mr. Sproat: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is his intention, assuming that there are no further outbreaks of fighting on the island, to allow the TAVR units which are to hold their annual camp there next month to go ahead, in particular the 4th Volunteer Battalion, Royal Green Jackets?

Mr. Mason: On the understanding that the hon. Gentleman might be wanting to go with them? It will depend entirely on the situation at the time. He must know that there was a TAVR unit on camp in Cyprus during the conflict which had to be brought back to the sovereign base area.

Mr. Peter Walker: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we on the Conservative side of the House would very much like to convey our congratulations and thanks to all three Armed Services for the remarkable skill which they displayed in what was a very tricky operation? Secondly, is he aware that we would like to express our hope that the remarks he made in reply to an earlier Question mean that at least this sad episode has resulted in him realising the importance of Cyprus as a base?

Mr. Mason: We have always realised the importance of Cyprus, and who knows to what extent that will come through in the defence review? I take on board what the right hon. Gentleman said in praise of the troops. This evacuation is unparalleled in peace time. Great credit is due to all British forces who have been concerned, plus all three Services active in the home base who were supplying and sending out aircraft 24 hours a day—sending out not only troops but supplies and so on, and then bringing back all the


8,000 people, together with foreign nationals from 49 different countries, including Russia and Germany, who led their nations to believe that they got their people out first. It has been a remarkable operation and credit is due to all concerned.

Royal Irish Rangers

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: asked the Secretary of State for Defence where the 1st Battalion Royal Irish Rangers has served since 1969.

Mr. William Rodgers: Since 1969, the 1st Battalion Royal Irish Rangers has been stationed at Catterick and in BAOR. During this period it has spent six months on an unaccompanied tour in Cyprus as part of the United Nations forces.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: Is it not a little exceptional that this regiment has never been allowed to return to its home base in Northern Ireland or to fulfil duties in Northern Ireland? May I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that its composition rather mirrors the community in Northern Ireland and that it might be of extremely effective assistant to the British Army out there?

Mr. Rodgers: The hon. Gentleman's point, though certainly worth serious consideration, raises difficult issues. As he will know, not since 1933 have any Irish regiments been stationed in Northern Ireland, except for training or ceremonial duties.

PENSIONS (PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECH)

Mr. Skinner: asked the Prime Minister whether he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech on 15th July in London on pensions.

Mr. Molloy: asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech made in London on 15th July on pensions.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): I did so on 18th July, Sir.

Mr. Skinner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Labour Government's pledge to increase pensions to £10 and

£16 will not go unheeded by the electorate when it is called upon? Does he agree that it is the trade unions, both Left and Right, which campaigned for this increase when more faltering voices were not heard? Will he further give an assurance that the next Labour Government will phase out supplementary benefits by giving further increases to old-age pensioners, and will also phase out supplementary benefits whether from this side of the Channel or the other?

The Prime Minister: The action of the Government in raising pensions was widely regarded in the country as a necessary act of social justice. It is a fact that some leading trade unionists pressed for this as the first priority to be carried out and went to great lengths to explain to their members at work that they should make any necessary sacrifices for the benefit of these pensioners. On his other point, I refer my hon. Friend to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that by placing firms' pensions schemes in limbo, as occurred when the Government refused to carry on the plans made by the previous Government, he is causing uncertainty and unhappiness, and possibly real hardship? Will he put something firm in place of what was a very good arrangement?

The Prime Minister: We do not agree that it was a good or fair arrangement. I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. I am happy to tell him that he will soon be seeing the proposals on superannuation, which my right hon. Friend will be issuing in the near future.

Mr. Molloy: Does my right hon. Friend not agree that since he made that speech to Age Concern the Government have implemented the largest-ever increase in pensions? Is he aware that this is one of the things that annoy Conservative Members? Is he further aware that what was so encouraging in that speech was the obvious desire of the British Labour movement to achieve a situation in which we shall be able to link pensions to average earnings so that, as my right hon. Friend has rightly said, true help may be given to our old-age pensioners?

The Prime Minister: In thanking my hon. Friend for his remarks, I reaffirm the commitment made about linking future increases in pensions to the average level of earnings.

Sir G. Howe: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House why, in the speech to which he has referred, he found it necessary to make an entirely misleading comparison between the increases in the State basic pension and the prospective increases which would have accrued under the Conservative Government scheme for a second pension? Was it perhaps because he has a sense of guilt at the repeated failure of successive Labour Governments under his leadership to bring into operation any scheme for a second occupational pension?

The Prime Minister: I do not agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman. The calculation which I gave on what the comparison would be was completely correct. As for a sense of guilt, while the right hon. and learned Gentleman, on his Front Bench merry-go-round, has no direct responsibility for the State reserve scheme, he certainly had collective responsibility for it, and I am sure that even he will agree, when my right hon. Friend's scheme is published, that it is a much fairer scheme.

NEWSPAPERS (ARCHIVES)

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Prime Minister if he will ask the Royal Commission on the Press to examine ways by which the archives of newspapers which cease publication may be preserved.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. The larger public libraries already have extensive files of newspapers and the libraries of statutory deposit, led by the British Library, will continue to maintain comprehensive collections, including those of newspapers which have ceased publication.

Mr. Hamilton: Can my right hon. Friend say where the archives of newspapers which have gone into liquidation—[An HON. MEMBER: "Hansard."]—such as the Daily Herald, News Chronicle, Reynolds News and the Glasgow

Forward, which are extremely valuable archives, are now and what will be done to preserve future archives if other newspapers go into liquidation?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend knows that the British Library receives, under the Copyright Acts as a right, copies of all these papers and it maintains the collection which is available for reference at Colindale. It must be for the British Library Board to consider whether to develop this service. Some newspapers have transferred their archives, for example to universities, without going out of production. However, if my hon. Friend will let me know the particular cases he has in mind, I will try to get the answer. I do not know the answer in relation to the newspapers he has mentioned.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: When the information is made available, will the Prime Minister ensure that the Royal Commission is made aware that the bulk of newspapers which have gone out of business have done so as a result of trade union restrictions and over-manning?

The Prime Minister: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. There was recently an extremely constructive debate in the House on all the problems of the Press, including the cost of production and manning arrangments, and a much wider series of subjects was discussed, I thought in a fairly united spirit, by the House a few weeks ago.

Mr. Ashley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the gagging writ is a device which can seriously interfere with the freedom of the Press? As the Phillimore Committee is shortly to report on this device, will he ensure that the Royal Commission on the Press is able to take account of the Phillimore Committee's findings?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend will recall that this matter and others were covered in the recent debate on the Press and that the whole House was concerned to ascertain whether further measures could be introduced to ensure greater Press freedom of comment while preserving a reasonable degree of privacy for the individual.

EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY

Mr. Blaker: asked the Prime Minister if he will set up an interdepartmental study of the consequences for Great Britain's economy of a decision to withdraw from the EEC.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. My right hon. Friends have reported to the House on the renegotiations. All relevant information for all contingencies is always available to all Governments.

Mr. Blaker: Has such a study already been made? Will the Prime Minister confirm that all members of the Cabinet support the Foreign Secretary in his approach to the negotiations, which is to approach them in good faith in the hope of a successful conclusion? Would not such a study prove to all members of the Government that the Foreign Secretary deserves support in his wish for this country to stay in the Community?

The Prime Minister: No special study has been made. My right hon. Friend has been negotiating in Brussels on the basis of the agreed view of the whole Cabinet—that was the mandate he was given—and I should have thought, though I have not had much evidence of this, that he probably receives a certain degree of support from Opposition Members for trying to put right the terms which were so badly negotiated two years ago.

Mr. Jay: Will my right hon. Friend note that there is no need for an interdepartmental study of the consequences of our not withdrawing from the Community because they are visible to all of us?

The Prime Minister: That is a view which my right hon. Friend may put forward, but some of my right hon. Friends, not least the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, have been trying to put right, and with considerable success, some of the matters which had been badly negotiated.

Mr. Thorpe: Is the Prime Minister aware that, although we accept that the Foreign Secretary is negotiating in good faith, there was considerable surprise that what had clearly been indicated to be the Foreign Office view on the common

energy policy, which had also been transmitted to our colleagues, was directly reversed when the Secretary of State for Trade got round the conference table? Would it not be better if the Foreign Secretary took the greater share, although admittedly he was on Cypriot business in Geneva? However, does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that this sort of behaviour does not enhance our reputation in Europe?

The Prime Minister: I do not agree. Certainly my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary would have been there but for his commitments in Geneva.

Mr. Mikardo: As the Chancellor of the Exchequer's proposal to double the regional employment premium and the proposals of the Secretary of State for Industry to assist in keeping going factories which might otherwise shut are being held up by examination in the European Commission, will my right hon. Friend confirm that one of the effects of our withdrawing from the Community will be that Her Majesty's Government and Parliament will be able to make their own decisions without restriction by a coven of unelected bureaucrats in Brussels?

The Prime Minister: There is no reason to suppose that the decisions of Her Majesty's Government referred to by my hon. Friend will be or can be held up by the Commission or anyone else in Brussels. If there were any attempt to do that, I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members opposite who supported the Chancellor of the Exchequer's proposals, including those on REP, with such enthusiasm in the vote last Wednesday evening would be the first to join in ensuring that that did not happen.

Mr. Heath: Will the Prime Minister answer the question put to him by the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe)? It is well known that what happened on the energy policy was that agreement was reached between all member countries of the Community, including the United Kingdom. It was reached by the officials dealing with this matter on the instructions of the British Government and it was overthrown entirely on the personal whim of the Secretary of State for Trade. Will the Prime Minister


account for this, because it has established in the Community a complete mistrust of the faith of the British Government?

The Prime Minister: Before I reply to the right hon. Gentleman's question, I hope I shall not be too far out of order in referring to the incident involving him this morning, which I think all of us will agree was totally deplorable. The issues involved are far too important to be dealt with by hooliganism. They should be dealt with by free and democratic debate.
I do not accept what the right hon. Gentleman has said in his question. We have taken the view on energy that, apart from national action which should be taken, we need to tackle—the right hon. Gentleman's Government took this view—the world's energy problem on a much broader basis than the Nine. We shall work with the Nine but, just as the right hon. Gentleman made clear, we also make clear that there can be no question of a commitment to share North Sea and Celtic Sea oil and gas with the Nine.

Mr. Heath: I am grateful for what the right hon. Gentleman said at the beginning of his remarks. I was delighted that the Minister for Sport was present at the occasion, and I am grateful to the Leader of the Liberal Party for the apology which he has sent me.

The Prime Minister: : So much for a little coalition.

GOVERNMENT POLICY (PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECH)

Mr. Nigel Lawson: asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech on Government policy at Aberystwyth on 13th July.

Mr. George Gardiner: asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech on Government policies at Aberystwyth on 13th July.

The Prime Minister: I would refer the hon. Members to the reply which I gave on 19th July to the hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts).

Mr. Lawson: In that speech the Prime Minister stressed the need for a united country working together. Does he agree

with the Home Secretary that national unity will not be achieved on the basis, favoured by the Labour Left, of "ignoring middle opinion and telling everyone who does not agree with you to go to hell"? In the light of this, will the Prime Minister, in his customary unequivocal manner, tell the House whether he approves or disapproves of his right hon. Friend's speech at Haverfordwest?

The Prime Minister: In my customary unequivocal manner I remind the hon. Gentleman that he was first elected to this Parliament defending not a Britain that was working unitedly but a Britain on a three-day week. As to the anxieties expressed by the hon. Gentleman—

Mrs. Fenner: Yes or No?

The Prime Minister: There are three parts to the supplementary question, and I shall answer the second before the third, as is customary in the House. In so far as the hon. Gentleman referred to matters which he thought were inimical to united working, many things have happened in the last week or two in the private sector that he supports which are extremely inimical to a united country.
In reply to the third part of the supplementary question, while I do not take exception to any words used in that speech I feel that it is part of the whole truth, and I shall be dealing with this in extenso in a speech in this building this evening. [Interruption.] I shall be delighted to arrange for tickets of entry for hon. Gentlemen when they are willing to allow my hon. Friends to address such meetings as the 1922 Committee meeting last Thursday. I shall be glad to send the hon. Gentleman a copy of my speech after it has been made.

Mr. Kinnock: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it comes ill from an Opposition Member to lecture us on policy when in the last three years we have had a Government whose policy existed almost totally of telling many sections of the population to go to hell? Does not my right hon. Friend think that it also comes ill from the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson), who had the dubious distinction of being one of the 23 Conservative Members who repudiated their cowardly leadership by voting last week against a cut in VAT?

The Prime Minister: We do not need a literal transcriptions of what Conservative right hon. Gentleman said in those three years to know that their policies were divisive, that they failed and that they now have no policy at all.

Mr. Gardiner: As the Prime Minister considers the Home Secretary's speech to have covered only part of the whole truth, will he kindly tell the House what he considers the other part to be?

The Prime Minister: I shall be glad to send the hon. Gentleman the full text of what I shall say tonight. It would delay the House for a long time if I were to read out the speech now. The hon. Gentleman can have the pleasure of reading that speech. He has been in the House only a short time, and even Reigate will prove not to be safe with such a Tory candidate.

Mr. Bidwell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that backward employers are extremely reluctant to treat their work-people as human beings, and that the time for worker representation in the higher levels of management in industry is long overdue? Is not that recognised in Labour Party policy, and does not my right hon. Friend agree that there can be no national unity until those facts are realised?

The Prime Minister: If my hon. Friend is referring to proposals for worker participation on boards, that policy is not confined to the Labour Party. It is the policy of several countries in Europe and, indeed, of the European Economic Community. My hon. Friend can feel satisfied that he has widespread support for what he has just said. In reply to the early part of the supplementary question, if my hon. Friend has any particular cases which he would like investigated perhaps he will send details of them to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment.

Mr. Peyton: Perhaps the Prime Minister will reflect that remarks such as "even Reigate" are well up to his normal standard and, before he dwells too long on the future in the House of my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner), which I am sure will be a long one, think about his own past and the fact that during the time when he wielded enormous influence as Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition this country's

standing in the world and its standards deteriorated.

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said. I did not even refer to Yeovil. The deterioration of standards—economic, social and many others—was greeted by the results of the General Election this year. In the spirit of the eve-of-recess bonhomie which inspires the whole House, I would say to the right hon. Gentleman in relation to his reference to standards that the standard of the Conservative Front Bench would be better if he were still there.

INTER-PARLIAMENTARY UNION (ACCOMMODATION)

Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am not sure whether this point of order comes within your purview, Mr. Speaker, or that of the Leader of the House.
You, Sir, are here to protect the interests of all Members of Parliament, irrespective of party, and particularly back benchers. There are various organisations which have accommodation in the House and hold meetings here, and I understand that the matter is under your control.
Many hon. Members are members of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, of which you are one of the Honorary Vice-Presidents. For, I think, a hundred years the IPU has occupied office accommodation in the House, from which it has now been kicked out by the other place. What can we as elected Members of Parliament do to protect our rights and so see that the other place does not kick out our appointed organisations from office accommodation which they want to keep? I ask you to look into this matter, Mr. Speaker, and to maintain the status quo until the House has an opportunity of discussing the subject.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Edward Short): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. This matter came to my notice this morning. In the last quarter of an hour I have met the Chairman and Secretary of the IPU and promised to look urgently into the matter.

Mr. Speaker: In regard to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for


Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis), I would inform the hon. Gentleman that I am concerned about these matters and knew of them. The extent to which I have any jurisdiction over accommodation in the other place is a matter of doubt, but it is a matter that is being considered by me as well as by the Leader of the House.

TRIUMPH MOTOR CYCLES, MERIDEN

Mr. Tom King: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It may have come to your notice that the Secretary of State for Industry recently announced in a Written Answer that Government aid to the extent of £4·95 million would be given to the Meriden Co-operative. The figure of £4·95 million is just below the £5 million for which the Government must seek the approval of the House.
The reason why I raise this matter, as it was discussed yesterday and as the House will be rising tomorrow, is that an announcement appeared in the newspaper this morning that a further £1·1 million subsidy will be required by Norton-Villiers to enable the scheme to go forward. That clearly indicates that the total package is well in excess of the £5 million for which parliamentary approval is required. I ask whether there has been any communication with you, Mr. Speaker, to enable the matter to be discussed before we rise?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: May I raise a new point of order, Mr. Speaker? It relates to a manœuvre which is being used to get round the proper usage of Parliament in looking after taxpayers' money. If this matter is not the responsibility of the Chair, whose responsibility is it? On the evidence that we have just heard, it is palpably a manœuvre aimed at getting round the proper rules of the House.

Mr. Speaker: It is certainly not a matter for the Chair to judge how the Government or Opposition conduct their business. They must fight it out between them. It is not a matter for the Chair to rule on these matters. So far as I know, nothing has happened contrary to the Standing Orders of the House.

Mr. Heath: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. We fully accept that it is not a matter for the Chair, but, since this matter has been drawn to the attention of the House, and, in particular, to the Leader of the House, will the right hon. Gentleman ask his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry to make a statement tomorrow before we begin the Adjournment debate so that the House may be apprised of the full situation?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Edward Short): As the position stands at the moment, the amount does not exceed £5 million, and, therefore, under legislation passed by the Conservative Government it does not need to come to the House. I give the right hon. Gentleman the assurance that if there is any question of its going up to £5 million or exceeding it, certainly it will come to the House of Commons.

Mr. Heath: Will the Leader of the House take up the point mentioned by my Friend, namely, that this is being done in two jumps and that the total will be over £5 million? Does not that in itself mean that the matter should come before the House?

Mr. Short: The only amount of money to which the Government have agreed is below £5 million. Therefore, it does not need to come to the House of Commons under legislation passed by the Conservative Government. [An HON. MEMBER: "Cheating!"] If the Government make more money available which will take the figure over £5 million, it will come to Parliament; otherwise it cannot be made available.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Short—statement.

GOVERNMENT WORK (DISPERSAL)

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Edward Short): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the Government's decisions on the recommendations of the Hardman Report on the dispersal of Government work from London.
The report recommended the dispersal of some 31,000 posts. Over one-third of these would have stayed in the South-East Region; little more than half would have gone to assisted areas. The Government regard such a distribution as unacceptable, because it undervalues the importance of the opportunities for administrative work that dispersal can provide where they are most needed. We have deferred decisions on two of Sir Henry Hardman's proposals owing mainly to organisational changes since we came to office, but in reaching decisions on the remainder we have tried as far as possible to provide new office employment in places where it will do most good. I am circulating full details in the OFFICIAL REPORT, but the main features are as follows:
Some 7,000 posts from the Ministries of Defence and Overseas Development will go to Glasgow. A similar number from the Ministry of Defence and other Departments will go to Cardiff and Newport. Some 4,500 posts will go to the North-West Region, the bulk of them to Merseyside, including elements of the Ministry of Agriculture and the Home Office. The headquarters of the Property Services Agency, some 3,000 posts, will go to Teesside, while the Laboratory of the Government Chemist will move to West Cumberland and 500 posts from the Department of Health and Social Security will join its units already in Newcastle. The number of posts to go to places in the South-East Region will fall from the 12,000 recommended in the report to 850.
The proposals on which we shall take decisions later concern the Board of Inland Revenue and the Department of Employment—the Manpower Services Commission and the proposed Health and Safety Commission. In the former case, it has been necessary to review Sir Henry Hardman's recommendations in the light of proposed changes in capital taxation, but it is expected that the resulting disposition of Inland Revenue work will benefit the assisted areas and will include the relocation of a substantial number of London posts. In the latter case, the Government wish to consult the new commissions before taking a final view on the siting of their headquarters.
The programme is the biggest dispersal exercise undertaken in peace time and

has major implications for staff as individuals and for local authorities. The Government wish to pay particular attention to the welfare of staff. I am glad to take this opportunity of reaffirming that there will be no redundancies among non-mobile staff in London as a result of the dispersal and that the Government, so far as possible, will select staff to fill dispersed posts on a voluntary basis. I would also add that improved transfer terms have already been agreed. Before reaching decisions, the Government had consultations with national and departmental Staff Sides. The Government recognise that, while the decisions will in general be welcome to staff serving in headquarters offices already outside London and to others, not all the moves will at once commend themselves to the staff affected in London, many of whom are not yet convinced that all the moves can be achieved without undue hardship to individuals or loss of operational efficiency. The Government believe, however, that the programme is manageable and that the problems can be overcome. They will now make it their business to do everything possible, in consultation with staff through the Whitley Council machinery, to ensure that this is the case.
I would emphasise that dispersal will not take place all at once: the programme will be carefully phased and will be spread over a period of up to 10 years. The Government will now get in touch with the local authorities concerned to discuss timetabling and related matters.
The distribution I have outlined improves considerably on that recommended by the Hardman Report. Nearly 90 per cent. of the dispersed posts will be located in assisted areas. Inevitably, it has not proved possible to provide work for all the places which have offered to receive it. The Government expect to reap major benefits in terms of better recruitment than in London, improved working conditions for staff and a reduction of the cost of their office estate. Such is the importance of these benefits, and of the creation of new employment in the assisted areas, that, although the present programme is a major new contribution to dispersal policy, the Government will continue to look for further opportunities to disperse headquarters work from London and, wherever possible, to site


in the assisted areas such new organisations as may from time to time be established. Opportunities may thus arise to place work in parts of the country which have argued for dispersal in the new programme. The Government are particularly anxious that such places should understand that their arguments have been considered and that this announcement does not mean the end of an active dispersal policy.
In conclusion, I confirm the siting of a large administrative centre in Washington New Town. Subject to Parliament approving the scheme, we shall establish there the headquarters of the Family Endowment Scheme. Including this work, for which a precise total cannot yet be given, and the deferred decisions mentioned above, the programme on which we are now embarking will result in the location of more than 31,000 jobs outside London, the great bulk of them in the assisted areas. This will do much to widen the career opportunities open to qualified boys and girls in some of our biggest cities and will thus go some way towards redressing the imbalance between the South-East and other parts of the country. It is a practical expression of our determination to achieve a more equitable distribution of job opportunities throughout the country and I am sure that it will commend itself to the House.

Mr. Prior: Is the Leader of the House aware that we warmly welcome dispersal of jobs from London, particularly because it is the fruitful outcome of the Hardman Committee, which was set up by a Conservative Government in 1971, and is the second such dispersal set on foot by a Conservative Government when in office? Could the right hon. Gentleman be more precise in his figures in respect of the Defence Ministry dispersal to Glasgow, in view of the Minister's footnote at the bottom of the page to the effect that this will depend on the defence review which is not yet completed? May I ask why this process will take 10 years? Is that not a very long time indeed to carry out what in any business activity would have to be carried out a great deal more quickly? Will he set up a special transfer unit in London to deal with civil servants who do not want to move and for whom a transfer in London will have to be arranged? Furthermore, will he

undertake to ensure that nobody will be forced to move unless he wants to go?

Mr. Short: Dealing with the right hon. Gentleman's first point, this is taking account of the defence review. We propose to send about 6,000 posts from the Ministry of Defence to Glasgow, and the other 1,000 in Glasgow are from the Ministry of Overseas Development.
On the right hon. Gentleman's second point, the previous Government in January of this year negotiated new transfer terms with the unions—if I may say so, extremely generous ones—and these will be operated.
As for redundancies, I have given an undertaking—and I have reaffirmed it—that among non-mobile staff there will be no redundancies. As far as humanly possible, we shall avoid redundancies among mobile staff.

Mr. Bottomley: I thank my right hon. Friend and the Government for at long last recognising the need to send a sizeable number of civil servants to Teesside. Will my right hon. Friend assure the Property Services Agency's employees that a warm and friendly welcome awaits them? In view of the amount of land available on Teesside and in view of our present economic difficulties and the high costs of defence, can my right hon. Friend say why it was decided to go to a great city instead of using that land?

Mr. Short: I am grateful for what my right hon. Friend has said. There will be a very large number of civil servants on Teesside, in Darlington, in Durham and in Newcastle. The presence of those civil servants will create career prospects for civil servants in the North-East which will be much better than ever before.
My right hon. Friend asks about accommodation. This will be discussed with local authorities. In some cases, accommodation will have to be built. In others, accommodation will be available for letting in the area. But this matter has now to be looked at.

Mr. David Steel: May I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the principle of dispersal will be welcomed warmly from the Liberal benches? Can he say how many jobs will be in the top decision-making bracket, because we regard that as having some importance? When he


talks of sending 7,000 posts to Glasgow, does that mean the city alone? Is not there a case for dispersal to Scotland generally? Finally, as the announcement about the Oil Development Corporation came after the publication of the Hardman Report, can he say how many jobs there will be in respect of that corporation and where they will be?

Mr. Short: The Glasgow jobs will be in the Glasgow area but not all of them in the city.
As for the Oil Development Corporation, I cannot say how many jobs this will involve.
As for top jobs, in the Departments to be dispersed there is a high policy-making content. There will be many more too jobs dispersed this time than ever before.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Chair is in obvious difficulty. I cannot possibly call everyone. It might be much fairer if I did not call anyone. Mr. Cledwyn Hughes.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his proposals will be widely welcomed in the reception areas, especially in those which are development areas? Can he say whether any of these dispersed units will be coming to North Wales—a most attractive area where there is a high level of unemployment and where a small unit would benefit the area out of all proportion to its size? If my right hon. Friend has no proposals of this kind, will he look at the matter again with a view to seeing that some unit comes to the area?

Mr. Short: My right hon. Friend made representations about North Wales, as did a number of other hon. Members. I am afraid that on this occasion it has not been possible to include North Wales. We have tried to avoid putting small numbers of civil servants in isolation in the country. The one exception is the Laboratory of the Government Chemist in West Cumberland, which is unique. With the object in mind of creating a better career structure for civil servants who are dispersed into the country we want large concentrations in a number of places. I am sure that my right hon.

Friend will welcome the jobs which we are creating in South Wales.

Sir William Elliott: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that his announcement about additional jobs for the North-East, especially for the future Washington New Town, will be welcome in the region? Does he appreciate that there will be considerable disappointment on Teesside over his announcement about the dispersal of defence posts since it is a heavily industrialised area and was hoping very much for dispersal there in order to create for younger people in the region, where there is still double the national average of unemployment, a better career structure?

Mr. Short: The hon. Gentleman is getting a little convoluted when he says that there will be disappointment on Teesside. We are creating 3,000 very good jobs there.

Dr. Mabon: While I join in the congratulations to my right hon. Friend, may I ask him about the two proposals which are postponed? How many jobs are involved in them? Does he agree that 10 years is a very long span and that it would be better if we could know how many of the jobs being dispersed—for example the 7,000 to the West of Scotland—are likely to materialise? Does he accept that the argument submitted on behalf of the West of Scotland by my right hon. and hon. Friends to the previous Government was for at least 10,000 jobs and not 7,000, which means that these two postponed projects are very important to us?

Mr. Short: At a very rough guess, the two postponed Departments would provide about 2,000 jobs. That is the nearest that I can get. It is somewhere near that.
As for my hon. Friend's second question, I cannot say what the date will be for the start of the dispersal to Glasgow. The whole process will be spread over 10 years. By the end of 10 years, it will be done. Some will start immediately, and some will go on throughout the decade. It is a complex operation, especially in the case of the Ministry of Defence.

Mr. Emery: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why aid has been given to Scotland, Wales, the North-East and the


North-West when the Government have again refused to give aid to the assisted area of the South-West?

Mr. Short: This is the kind of area that we have to look at in the new dispersal proposals which we shall be beginning to consider. As I said before, we have tried this time to create large concentrations in provincial areas so that there are career prospects for civil servants in the provinces, instead of having small numbers here and there. I agree that we must now look at the South-West.

Mr. Wigley: Further to the very valid point made by the right hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes), does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that we are concerned about career prospects in areas like North Wales as well as about having civil servants in a few centres? It is difficult for many people to appreciate how career prospects will necessarily be better in a few centralised areas rather than in dispersed posts. Can the right hon. Gentleman look at this again in order to help such areas?

Mr. Short: Obviously, I cannot look at the Departments that I have announced. They are now firm decisions. But North Wales and the South-West are areas to be borne in mind. I remind the hon. Gentleman that parts of North Wales will benefit from the Merseyside dispersal.

Mr. Duffy: Why has my right hon. Friend not dispersed a single job, no matter how modest, to Yorkshire and Humberside? Is he not aware that it is an assisted area, that it has a general unemployment problem, and that in respect of office employment there is only one area, the East Midlands, which is worse off? Is he not aware also that it has 9 per cent. of the national population and only 1½ per cent. of headquarter civil servants, that it sends almost as many Labour Members to this House as Scotland, and that if it goes on being treated in this way the support of some may come under the same kind of strain?

Mr. Short: Further dispersals are coming along. My hon. Friend's points will be borne in mind. But I remind him that there are already very large numbers of civil servants in Yorkshire.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Why has Peterborough been left off the location list? Is

the right hon. Gentleman aware that when the late Richard Crossman persuaded Peterborough, an ancient city, to accept the designation of a new town, he virtually promised that, to balance the upheaval that it would cause, this kind of work would be sent there? Why is it not on the list?

Mr. Short: The Government had to use a number of criteria, one of which I have already mentioned—the need to have large concentrations. The unemployment rate is another of the criteria. The power of absorption locally is another. A number of factors have to be taken into account. Peterborough simply did not qualify under those criteria.

Mr. Guy Barnett: I declare an interest as a consultant to the Society of Civil Servants. Whatever the attractions of many parts of the country, may I put the point of view of the civil servants by asking the Lord President whether he can give an absolute assurance that, so far as possible, dispersal will be voluntary? While recognising the special problems relating to professional and scientific civil servants, may I ask whether he will try to ensure that general service civil servants have a choice in this matter? Does he agree that the main object is to disperse jobs rather than people?

Mr. Short: I have already given an absolute assurance that there will be no redundancies among non-mobile civil servants. Dispersal will be purely voluntary. For the rest, as far as humanly possible dispersal will be undertaken by volunteers, but there may be odd cases here and there where that is not possible. However, we shall do that as far as possible.

Mr. Waddington: Will the Leader of the House recognise that his announcement will be greeted like a smack in the face by people in the North-East Lancashire intermediate area? Does he recognise that a number of decisions which have been made recently have steadily eroded the position of the intermediate areas? With this announcement following the decision to double REP, which gives a vast new incentive to development areas and further weakens the relative position of the intermediate areas, does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that


there will be great dissatisfaction that no promises whatsoever have been made to North-East Lancashire?

Mr. Short: I know that there is a problem in North-East Lancashire. This is one area which must be looked at in future. It is the kind of area to which newly created bodies could be sent. But I repeat the problem that I have mentioned two or three times already—namely, the need to have large concentrations of civil servants in provincial areas instead of fragmentation. However, I will bear in mind what the hon. and learned Gentleman said about North-East Lancashire.

Mr. Gourlay: While welcoming the dispersal of over 7,000 staff to Scotland, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend is aware that there will be great disappointment in Fife and other parts of Scotland that the Government have seen fit to transfer from the largest conurbation in England to Glasgow, which is the largest conurbation in Scotland? This cannot be sensible economic planning. Will the Leader of the House therefore consider allocating the Overseas Development Department to Fife or some other part of the East Coast of Scotland?

Mr. Short: On the criteria that I have mentioned, Glasgow has the greatest capacity in Scotland for absorbing civil servants. That is why we have sent a large number there. As I said last week, it is an extremely desirable place in which to work and live. I am sure that when the civil servants move there they will enjoy working and living there.

Mr. Carlisle: Whilst welcoming the right hon. Gentleman's statement, may I ask how many, if any, of the jobs coming to the North-West are coming to the Runcorn new town, which already has a successful civil service unit? Secondly, will he bear in mind that dispersal of this nature is of greater help to areas such as Runcorn and Merseyside as a whole than necessarily the doubling of the REP, which, although it helps my constituency, creates an imbalance in the North-West and areas like North-East Lancashire?

Mr. Short: We may disagree about the definition, but roughly 5,280 jobs will be coming to the North-West. I agree that

this is the kind of employment that areas like the North-West and the North-East of Scotland need.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: While welcoming the number of jobs that will be coming to Scotland, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman what proportion of those jobs will already be filled by staff who will be transferred from London and elsewhere? Secondly, in view of the dissatisfaction which was experienced at the time of the transfer of the National Savings Bank over housing arrangements, will the right hon. Gentleman indicate whether any special provision will be given for housing in the Glasgow area?

Mr. Short: It is difficult to answer the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question. At a rough guess, I should have thought about half, but, of course, there will be a succession of jobs available from then on.
On the second point, as I pointed out before, we will begin discussions with the local authorities about housing, accommodation, and other arrangements that can be made.

Mr. Roy Hughes: I thank the Lord President of the Council for his statement. Is he aware that the people of South Wales appreciate that it was the last Labour Government that established the Motor Taxation Office at Swansea, the Royal Mint at Llantrisant and the Business Statistics Office at Newport. The announcement of new jobs for Cardiff and Newport will again be particularly welcome. I assure my right hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Barnett) that any civil servants who are dispersed there as a result of this announcement will be made particularly welcome.

Mr. Short: I am sure that is correct. Everyone is welcome in South Wales. We are sending 7,400 jobs there. There are a great many qualified young people in South Wales, and these jobs will provide them with the kind of employment opportunities that they need.

Miss Fookes: Will the Leader of the House confirm that not one of the 5,000 jobs recommended in the Hardman Report is to go to Plymouth? Will he explain more fully why the South-West is so shabbily treated?

Mr. Short: It is true that in this dispersal no new jobs are to go to Plymouth. However, the hon. Lady will recollect that there are a large number of civil servants in Plymouth already. [Interruption.] Indeed there are. I have lost the figures for the moment, but there are large numbers there. As a matter of

Department



Approximate number of posts
Location


Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food
…
…
…
1,250
Merseyside


Agricultural Research Council
…
…
…
160
Merseyside


Civil Service Department
…
…
…
360
Norwich*






300
Basingstoke*






50
Sunningdale*


H.M. Customs and Excise
…
…
…
500
Southend*


Ministry of Defencet†
…
…
…
5,000
Cardiff






6,000
Glasgow


Department of the Environment
…
…
…
1,160
Bristol


Countryside Commission
…
…
…
90
Cheltenham


Property Services Agency
…
…
…
3,000
Teesside






1,000
To be decentralised to Regional Headquarters


Foreign and Commonwealth Office
…
…
…
500
Merseyside


Department of Health and Social Security
…
…
…
500
Newcastle*






980
Blackpool*


Home Office
…
…
…
1,000
Merseyside


Natural Environment Research Council
…
…
…
190
Swindon‡


Ministry of Overseas Development
…
…
…
1,000
Glasgow


Office of Population Censuses and Surveys
…
…
…
500
Merseyside (Southport)*


Science Research Council
…
…
…
380
Swindon‡


H.M. Stationery Office
…
…
…
380
Norwich*


Departments of Trade and Industry
…
…
…
1,600
Cardiff and Newport*§


Laboratory of the Government Chemist
…
…
…
360
West Cumberland


Export Credits Guarantee Department
…
…
…
800
Cardiff


Manpower Services Commission
…
…
…
750
To be decided


Health and Safety Commission
…
…
…
—
To be decided


Inland Revenue
…
…
…
—
To be decided


* Existing Dispersal Centre for the Departments concerned.


† The numbers given may be affected by the result of the Defence Review and must be regarded as no more than estimates for the time being.


‡ Confirms decisions announced by the last Administration in 1973.


§ Includes some 1,000 posts in part of the Companies Registration Office, already announced.

POLICE (INVESTIGATION OF COMPLAINTS)

Mr. Lane: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask whether you have had any request from the Home Secretary to make a statement on future procedures for the investigation of complaints against the police? This is an important matter both to the police and to the public and it has frequently been raised at Question Time. It will be most unsatisfactory if any announcement now takes the form of a Written Answer.

Mr. Norman Fowler: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. This matter was raised on several occasions in common with hon. Gentlemen opposite at

fact, the Land Registry is there and, of course, the Royal Navy Dockyard.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am afraid that we must move on.

The details are as follows:

Question Time. We were specifically promised that a statement would be made in this House on the matter. It is a matter of considerable concern not only to the public but to the police service. It would be highly unsatisfactory if it was announced as a Written Answer in a semi-underground way.

Mr. Speaker: No doubt that matter will be noted.

TEESSIDE

Mr. Wrigglesworth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Gentleman opposite representing a distant constituency to attempt to speak on behalf of my constituents and the


constituents of other hon. Members representing Teesside constituencies in criticising the Government?

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a good try, but it is not a matter of order for the Chair.

TRIUMPH MOTOR CYCLES, MERIDEN

Mr. Tom King: Mr. Speaker, I should like to preface my remarks by apologising for not giving you normal notice of my request.
I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration; namely,
the proposal of the Government to assist the Meriden Co-operative with a total contribution of £6.05 million without parliamentary approval contrary to the requirements of the Industry Act 1972".
I raise this matter because, as you will have heard from previous exchanges with the Leader of the House, it was clear that he was not conceding that if this project in total involved these sums of money a statement should be made to the House. I should like to remind you, Mr. Speaker, that in your period—

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Edward Short): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I said in terms that if it exceeded £5 million we would come to the House for approval.

Mr. King: Mr. King rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must interrupt the hon. Gentleman. I think that this is an abuse of the Standing Order No. 9 procedure. [Interruption.] I listened carefully to what happened. The Leader of the House promised to look into the matter and, if necessary, to make a statement.

Mr. Tom King: I accept that the right hon. Gentleman said that, but his words were carefully chosen. We are particularly concerned about the way that the money is to be spent. The right hon. Gentleman's statement exactly parallels the way in which the Secretary of State for Industry is proceeding with the matter. If I might briefly elaborate the matter I

think that it will become clear.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have listened to the hon. Member. I am not allowed to give my reasons. His submission appears to be based on something which was printed in a newspaper, and I cannot accept a Standing Order No. 9 application on that basis without notice.

Mr. King: In that case, Mr. Speaker, may we secure through you a firm undertaking that a statement will be made on this question by the Secretary of State for Industry before the House rises? It must be clear to the Leader of the House that there is real concern over this matter which could be cleared up if the Secretary of State was prepared to make a statement. We have had only one written answer on this whole matter. If the Leader of the House is hiding behind the technical protection of the Industry Act he should recall that on a previous occasion my right hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Chataway), when the Government made a contribution of £4·8 million to Norton Villiers Triumph, made a statement to the House although he was not specifically required to so. He did so so that it should not be thought that he was in any way trying to avoid bringing the issue before the House.
I should be very much happier if this could be simply resolved by a statement tomorrow by the Secretary of State for Industry so that before the House adjourns we know exactly what the situation is.

Mr. Edward Short: I repeat the firm undertaking I gave as clearly as I can. The Government will comply with the law and if the money we offer to this firm exceeds £5 million we shall come to the House for parliamentary approval. I cannot make it any clearer than that.

BILL PRESENTED

SURVIVING SPOUSE (CONTINUATION OF MOTOR INSURANCE)

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop supported by Mr. Robert Cooke, Mr. W. Benyon, and Miss Janet Fookes, presented a Bill to provide that, where there is in existence a contract of insurance which enables one spouse to drive for pleasure, social or domestic purposes a vehicle or vehicles which the said policy covers for the benefit of the other spouse with whom


the contract of insurance was made, the contract of insurance shall continue until its normal date of expiry, or for fourteen days, whichever shall be the longer, on the death of the spouse who entered into the contract of insurance without additional premium payment: and the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow; and to be printed. [Bill 109.]

RAPE (ANONYMITY OF VICTIMS) BILL

4.12 p.m.

Mr. F. P. Crowder: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide anonymity for victims of illegal rape in criminal cases except by direction of the Court.
In particular I draw attention to the last six words of the motion—
except by direction of the court
because from time to time in cases of rape it would be of assistance to the defence for the name and address of the alleged victim to be published. We know only too well that Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned, and that there are women who, out of spite and venom, will quite unjustly and wrongfully accuse persons of having raped them. It often happens that they do it not once but twice, and if such information comes to the knowledge of the defence and the defence feels it right and proper that it should be disclosed in the newspapers counsel can make application to the court and it will be within the discretion of the sitting judge to decide whether the victim's name should be published.
I hope that this is not a controversial measure. Hon. Members will recall not so long ago in the Eastern Counties a case which received tremendous publicity. It involved a lady following a distinguished career on the stage who alleged that she was raped by a police officer. She was subjected to publicity of the strongest possible kind and I am happy to say that her courage in coming forward in the way she did was reflected by the jury, who found the police officer guilty.
One statistic we do not know is the number of people who are victims of rape but who, because they do not wish to face the publicity not only perhaps in the national Press but in their local papers, refuse to come forward and give a statement to the police with all that that involves. I say that advisedly because in the first instance they have to go to the police station and make a statement. In a case of that sort they must undergo long and careful interrogation. Then, if Section 1 of the 1967 Act is not invoked, they can be told to appear at the magistrates' court. The woman will probably have to spend half a day waiting for the


case to come on and then be subjected to cross-examination. Three or four months later when the matter comes be-before a judge and jury at assize she finds herself once more in the witness box.
In most cases where only one person is involved the defence is nearly always one of consent. That is an instance of a perfectly innocent lady having to answer the most outrageous allegations against her virtue. That in itself is an unpleasant experience, but then to see these allegations placarded in the Press only adds insult to injury and cannot assist the needs of justice in any way.
Generally speaking, cases of rape fall into three or possibly four categories. First, there is the case of rape involving a number of young men. There is the case where one young man or an older man uses the threat of violence or violence with a knife or a gun. Then there are cases which should perhaps never come before courts. They happen in this way. A young lady returns home in the early hours of the morning. Her mother is waiting up because she is anxious about her daughter. The young lady's appearance is dishevelled, and if it happens in the summer months she may have a certain amount of straw attached to her. The mother proceeds to interrogate the girl who bursts into tears and says she has been raped. The father is awakened and he rushes off to the police station. There the wheels of the criminal law start to turn and there is no stopping them.
I repeat that generally speaking where innocent single victims are concerned the defence is one of consent with all that that involves for the person in the witness box. I do not see that the ends of justice can in any way be assisted by that person's name, reputation and sometimes professional career being placarded before the general public. If the defence is successful on the basis that there might have been consent, if the jury feels there is reasonable doubt and they cannot say with the certainty which the law requires that the defendant is guilty he is acquitted. For ever after, that unfortunate victim will have a finger pointed at her and people will say, "Of course she consented" and her reputation is ruined.
I hope that the Bill will not be opposed, and I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. F. P. Crowder, Mrs. Jill Knight and Mr. Maurice Edelman.

RAPE (ANONIMITY OF VICTIMS)

Mr. Petre Crowder accordingly presented a Bill to provide anonymity for victims of illegal rape in criminal cases except by the direction of the court: and the same was read the First Time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday, 15th October and to be printed. [Bill 108.]

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL

Considered in Committee: reported, without amendment.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 93 (Consolidated Fund Bills), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS BILL

Lords amendments considered.

Clause 2

STATUS OF TRADE UNIONS

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 2, line 43, after "this section" insert "and section 4 below".

4.20 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Albert Booth): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Speaker: With this we are taking Lords amendment No. 2, in Clause 3, page 3, line 43, after "this section" insert "and section 4 below".

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendment agreed to.

New Clause "A"

RIGHTS OF WORKERS AGAINST ARBITRARY EXCLUSION FROM TRADE UNION MEMBERSHIP.

Lords amendment: No. 3, in page 4A, line 36, at end, insert the following new Clause A—

"(1) Subject to the provisions of this Section every worker shall have the right not to be—

(a) excluded from membership;
(b) expelled from membership of a trade union or a branch or section of a trade union by way of arbitrary or unreasonable discrimination.

(2) The exclusion or expulsion of a worker from membership of a union, branch or section

shall not be deemed to be arbitrary or unreasonable if the worker is of a description different from that or those of the majority of the members of that union, branch or section (as the case may be) or does not possess the appropriate qualifications for such membership.
(3) A worker aggrieved by his exclusion or expulsion from any trade union, branch or section may apply to an industrial tribunal in accordance with industrial tribunal regulations for a declaration that he is entitled to be a member of that union, branch or section.
(4) Where any such declaration has been made and has not been implemented by the union, branch or section concerned within any period specified in the declaration or if no such period is specified within a reasonable period, the worker may apply to the High Court or in Scotland the Court of Session for an injunction, interdict or such other relief (including compensation) as the Court may think just and expedient in all the circumstances of the case.
(5) Nothing in this section or section 2(5) above shall prejudice or in any way reduce the Common Law rights of a person who has applied to join but not been given membership of or who claims to be and to remain a member of or who has been expelled from a trade union."

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Michael Foot): I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
I do not suppose that anyone in the House, particularly those who endured the Committee and Report stages and other proceedings on the Bill, will wish me to rehearse the arguments on the clause at any length. I certainly do not propose to do so. But I trust that in my referring to the matter briefly no one will thereby jump to the assumption that I do not regard the clause as an important one. We certainly think that it is important. As we have said on previous occasions, we believe that it is necessary that steps should be taken to deal with the problem with which the clause seeks to deal. But, as we have explained previously, we do not think that the way in which the Opposition has sought to deal with the matter is sensible. Indeed, we believe that this way of going about it would be injurious, perhaps, to the performance that they themselves or others have at heart in trying to deal with the problem.
I shall not, therefore, go over those arguments again. I merely say that on the ground of principle, as I have argued previously, we disagree with the proposal for this way of dealing with it. However, I repeat all the undertakings that I have made on behalf of the Government on


Second reading, in Committee and on Report. I repeat all the undertakings that we certainly intend to proceed to deal with it in some form or other, either in a code of practice or by some other means, but following consultations with the General Council of the TUC, when we introduce the next Bill in the autumn—the Employment Protection Bill.
In examining the clause as it has returned from the other place, I should like to reinforce our objections to the acceptance of this clause by underlining some of the deficiencies which we see in it as it is drafted, and which further indicate why it would be much more desirable to proceed to deal with the matter along the lines that the Government have suggested from the beginning. But here are some particular matters on which we think that the clause is defective—defective even for achieving any sensible result.
First, while arbitrary or unreasonable discrimination may be a good test in relation to exclusion from a trade union, it does not make sense in relation to expulsion. Second, the sensible test for expulsion is to ask whether it is fair and reasonable by ordinary commonsense standards. This is not necessarily the same thing as asking whether the expelled member was treated differently from other members. Third, the test in subsection (2) of the worker in question being of a different description from the majority of members of the union will often produce a nonsense in relation to expulsion.
Fourth, the other test in subsection (2) about possessing the appropriate qualifications for membership of the union seems misconceived. Section 65 of the 1971 Act mentioned appropriate qualifications for a job, a legitimate test. This part of subsection (2) either duplicates the "description" test or goes too far. For instance, it might allow a union to exclude applicants for membership on the ground that their fathers or grandfathers had not been members of the union.
Fifth, subsection (2) appears to suffer from the same defect as subsection (1), namely, that the provisions work for refusal to admit but not for expulsion. It is established that if a worker is ineligible but is "admitted" to membership then

when his ineligibility is discovered he is not "expelled" because he has never been a member. Sixth, subsection (3) could be criticised for not giving enough guidance to industrial tribunals as to when they are to make a declaration.
Seventh, subsection (4) is defective in four different respects. In the first place, one does not "implement" a declaration, although one can give effect to what it declares. Next, the subsection does not answer the question whether the worker has to prove his right to membership all over again before the High Court or whether he can simply prove the declaration and the fact that it has been ignored. Third, the subsection gives no guidance on the awarding of compensation and how it is to be assessed; nor does it give power to assess further compensation if the union persists in excluding a worker.
I cannot believe that subsection (5) is necessary. It is inconceivable that the courts would construe the existence of the clause as cutting down any common law rights.
We believe, therefore, that those are good reasons why the clause as it stands, even for the purpose as the Opposition and the House of Lords have expressed it, is deficient and should not be accepted by a Parliament which is saying that it wants to make the law clear. We think that the reason why such a deficient clause has been presented to the House is precisely that, as we have reiterated in previous debates, those who have drawn up the clause are not really familiar with the conduct of trade unions. That is why they have produced a clause which does not bear any relationship to the way in which these matters can be dealt with.
Therefore, even in the interests of securing a clause which achieved the end which right hon. and hon. Members of the Opposition have indicated, we would say that there are good reasons for rejecting the clause, because a clause of this nature put into the law of the land and operated, giving rise to the anomalies and disagreements which would certainly arise from such a badly drafted clause, might prejudice the whole idea of getting a sensible arrangement in the end.
I turn to another subject which does not immediately appear to be exactly connected with this aspect of the matter—although I believe that it is and I shall


seek to illustrate that shortly. I must comment briefly, however, on the position left on the so-called Lever amendments and the failure of the House of Lords, notably Lord Hailsham, to alter them in any particular whatever. This relates to what we are discussing. This affects the question of the circumstances in which someone might be excluded or expelled from, or find himself no longer a member of, a union. But it is necessary that the House should consider, in relation to the clause and the Bill generally, what is the position on the statute book as a result of the House of Lords' attitude to the so-called Lever amendments. The House will recall the incident which occurred a week or two ago.
4.30 p.m.
One result of those two amendments as they stand would be complete confusion. By giving what could be a totally misleading definition of a closed shop, Parliament will be saying "We define as an elephant an animal with a long neck and horns, and it is for the courts to apply the definition in the real world where elephants have trunks and tusks." That could be one of the meanings of the definition which has been placed in the Bill.
A possible serious deduction from this ridiculous situation is that people may be deprived of the right which the whole House wishes them to have. Those who remember all our discussions will remember our discussions about people with religious convictions and how that might apply in cases of unfair dismissal. If the normal type of closed shop agreement does not fall within the present definition, this could mean that workers dismissed in a closed shop situation, although they have religious objections to belonging to any trade union, will be deprived of any protection against unfair dismissal which the Government wanted to provide.
There is another possible explanation for these provisions. On the strict wording of the Bill as it stands and which the House of Lords has denied us the right to alter, there is another reading which could be satisfactory to the Government but, I presume, not to the Opposition. The Act read as a whole makes both legal and industrial sense only if the Lever membership agreement is permitted to specify to which unions the

relevant workers must belong—in other words, it may be that the main aim the Government had in mind is achieved despite the Opposition mutilations. The Government would have preferred to have made the law clear instead of leaving it in this state of chaos.

Mr. Ian Percival: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it would have been more informative and at the same time more fair if, instead of blaming the Upper House for this situation, he told the House that I and my right hon. and hon. Friends have made two offers to clear the defect about which he has spoken and that it is the Government who have rejected them out of hand and turned down the opportunity to avoid all the difficulties about which he is speaking?

Mr. Foot: The hon. and learned Gentleman has not given a fair account of what has occurred. I intended to refer to discussions which had taken place. No real responsibility for this state of affairs can be pinned upon the Government, because in the Lords the Government attempted to return the Lever amendments to the Commons for intelligent scrutiny. Thus all the hon. and learned Gentleman's proposals for an alteration of what might be done would under his proposal have come back to the Commons for discussion. We were certainly not opposed to that.
Indeed, if what the Government proposed in the Lords had been accepted the matter could have come back to the Commons for decision. However, it is by the decision of the House of Lords, and in particular on the insistence of Lord Hailsham, as is evident from the debates that took place there, that we have been denied the right to settle the matter, whether with the hon. and learned Gentleman's amendments or with others. The Tory majority in the House of Lords flatly rejected the proposal to deal with the matter in that way.
Therefore, the so-called Lever amendments should be given their proper name. They will go on to the statute book as the finest specimen of Hailsham law, brilliantly contradictory to the point of schizophrenia. That is the fact. No hon. Gentleman opposite can escape from the responsibility for the situation.
If it is proposed to go ahead with some of the other amendments, which unfortunately leave the law in chaos, nobody will know exactly what is the meaning of the law on those two amendments until the matters come before the courts.

Mr. James Prior: Why, then, did not the right hon. Gentleman move amendments himself in the Lords, as he could have done, and which would have been accepted by the House of Commons?

Mr. Foot: The right hon. Gentleman misunderstands the situation. Motions were moved which would have ensured that these matters would have returned to the House of Commons. Those motions were defeated because the House of Lords—in particular, Lord Hailsham—were determined to adhere to these amendments despite their defects, and their obscurity.
I come to the amendment and how it affects this position. Once again, what the House has to consider is whether Parliament is to place upon the statute book provisions which are very obscure. That would be the effect if we were to agree to the Lords amendment on the rights of workers against arbitrary exclusion from trade union membership.
As I have indicated before in considerable detail in the sense of pointing out several defects in the amendment as it stands, it would be reprehensible if Parliament were not only to permit the Lever amendments, so-called, to go on to the statute book in the chaotic state in which the House of Lords has left them but were to proceed further to deal with the matter in a fashion not so different.
I hope that the House has good reasons for disagreeing with this Lords amendment. On the question of seeking to avoid legal confusion, if this clause giving rise to such legal confusion were to be placed upon the statute book I believe that it would prejudice the aim which I think is held by many hon. Members, certainly by hon. Members on this side.
We wish to deal with this problem in a fair and sensible manner. We believe that the best way of dealing with it is after consultations with the trade unions which are effective. The course I described on Second Reading, in Committee

and on Report is much the best way of proceeding. The House would make a great mistake if it were to substitute for our sensible recommendations measures which would lead only to further legal confusion and further uncertainty about the Bill's interpretation when it reaches the statute book.

Mr. Barney Hayhoe:: I am sorry that the Secretary of State adopted the very unconstructive, dogmatic and "anti" attitude which has pervaded practically his whole approach to every suggestion, from whatever quarter, which has been designed to make substantial improvements to the Bill.
I believe that the right hon. Gentleman is missing a great opportunity. I do not understand why he cannot find it in himself to accept the reasonable and sensible changes which have been proposed and which have commanded the support of the Conservative and Liberal benches and which I think would command much wider support if these issues were taken outside the House into a wider forum and public opinion could be tested.
The Lords amendment suggests that workers shall have the right not to be excluded or expelled
from membership of a trade union or a branch or section of a trade union by way of arbitrary or unreasonable discrimination".
That proposition is so unexceptionable as to command at least the support in principle of the Secretary of State and his hon. Friends. I believe that we should be discussing the matter in a little detail but certainly not in the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman dealt with the matter in Committee, on Report and again today. His argument remained thin and got thinner as he repeated it.
The substantial part of the right hon. Gentleman's argument is that there is no need to carry this amendment because the Government propose to do something undefined on an unspecified date. The Government say that they do not know quite what they will do, or when they intend to do it, but that it would be much better to leave the situation open, with no protection for people treated arbitrarily except common law, which gives no protection to someone arbitrarily excluded from a union.
Not quite all hon. Members on this side share the views that I have expressed.


Members of the Scottish National Party have throughout had no regard for the rights of the individual but have humped and stumped themselves completely into the Labour Party's pocket. They do not contribute to our debate, but no doubt their votes are useful to the Labour Party.
In addition to his suggestion that we should wait, the right hon. Gentleman has attacked drafting deficiencies in the amendment with 10 nit-picking comments, which his advisers have no doubt been chasing around to find. I noticed that he was reading from a script instead of letting the words flow from his own mind as he usually does. The arguments, as a result, were unbelievably thin.
On a new matter, the right hon. Gentleman said that subsection (5) in Amendment No. 3 was unnecessary. The point is made that nothing in the clause will detract from the common law rights of people affected. The right hon. Gentleman's legal advice may be absolutely certain that nothing in the preceding four subsections could in any circumstances affect those rights. But there is no harm in that final subsection. It may be tautologous but surely even in his own writings over the years there is the odd sentence which was not necessary, a belt reinforcing braces. That was the level of his arguments. I suspect that the simple truth is that he has not had the TUC's permission to accept the amendment.
The right hon. Gentleman is already reported as saying that amendments in another place would stop trade unions doing things which they have been free to do for years. That is an interesting comment. Perhaps the report that I read, which was a condensed version—

Mr. Foot: I think that the hon. Gentleman is quoting from the Daily Telegraph.

Mr. Hayhoe: Mr. Hayhoe indicated assent.

Mr. Foot: He has got it inaccurately, so I hope that he will not proceed. My reference to the amendment in the House of Lords which injured some activities which trade unions exercised between 1906 and the 1960s referred to the immunities clause and not this clause at all.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Hayhoe: I am glad of that explanation. The report in the Daily

Telegraph was a curious one. The suggestion could have led one into these wider aspects. I accept that the right hon. Gentleman did not seek to attack this change because it harmed union rights.

Mr. Foot: The hon. Member must not follow the example of the Daily Telegraph. I said that I was referring to another clause, but he must not say that I was saying that the clause which we are discussing as adopted by the Lords contains nothing detrimental to unionists. As I have said, partly because of serious drafting errors, it could inflict injustices on people in closed shop and other situations.

Mr. Hayhoe: If the right hon. Gentleman wants to pursue the matter, I might say that the reason why the Daily Telegraph used the words it did was that the words that he had used in his handout were seriously deficient. Of the amendments made in another place, he said in that handout:
But some of these amendments rob trade unionists of rights which they have held and invoked effectively during most of the period between 1906 and 1971".
If he was not prepared to specify the amendments he had in mind and we have had to draw him to his feet today to make it clear that he was referring to the specific amendment to Clause 10, could he tell us what other amendments he thinks rob trade unions of their rights?

Mr. Foot: Another one is that relating to interpretation of the union membership agreement under the interpretation which the Opposition placed upon it. But I have said already that there is a great deal of confusion there, that no one knows what it means.

Mr. Hayhoe: The Secretary of State dives in deeper. The House of Lords made no change to the definition of the union membership agreement—

Mr. Foot: The Opposition did.

Mr. Hayhoe: But the Secretary of State's handout talked of amendments made in another place. He gets deeper in the mire the more he tries to explain, with the broad brush spraying the dirt of condemnation in the handout. We now understand that he believes that what he said in the handout applies to changes to the immunity provisions. We may


come to those arguments later. What he said certainly does not apply to the matter that we are now discussing.
The only compelling argument, which moved some of the Secretary of State's right hon. Friends, former Ministers, was the argument not that the proposals in the clause were wrong and deficient but that because the Government had promised to bring forward future changes we should wait until then. There was general agreement among members of his own party in another place that a provision of this kind against arbitrary or discriminatory expulsion or exclusion was a good thing. The whole background of the matter favours such a provision.
So for all the right hon. Gentleman's fine words about what he may do in future, we should tell him and his hon. Friends that he leaves us wholly unconvinced, that we are not prepared to accept his advice to disagree with the Lords. On the contrary, we believe that the Lords have made a good amendment. It is an amendment that we have discussed in the past and that the House came near to supporting when we considered it before. I hope that today we shall confirm that we should have this protection against arbitrary or discriminatory action, even though it happens only occasionally. That is a matter agreed on both sides of the House. It is an essential protection, which must be implemented in the Bill.

Sir Raymond Gower: The Secretary of State is asking the House to do a great deal, in asking it to sacrifice these Lords amendments. He has already admitted in his statement that if the amendment is excluded from the Bill the consequences for an individual could be serious. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but he confessed that the amendment is excluded from the Bill the conequences could be of some significance to the individual affected. He said that if that happened the situation would be remedied by a clause to be included in the Employment Protection Bill. That is the inference to be drawn. Otherwise,

that Bill would not be necessary. No hon. Member on this side of the House knows anything about that Bill. None of us—Conservatives, Liberals or other parties—has any idea what it will include, and probably many of the Secretary of State's own colleagues do not know.

The Secretary of State is asking us to sacrifice this only safeguard for the sake of the amorphous inclusion of a new provision in a Bill that has probably not yet been drafted. I would remind the Secretary of State that the lives of Governments, like those of individuals, are somewhat uncertain. There is no certainty that we shall ever see that Bill.

The right hon. Gentleman alleged that the wording was defective. He even said that a declaration cannot be implemented. That is reducing the matter to an absurdity. The Secretary of State must know full well that the terms of a declaration can be implemented, and would be interpreted accordingly.

I hope that the Secretary of State will realise on reflection that he is asking too much. He will not admit that anyone outside his own party can have a real concern for the welfare and well-being of the trade union movement. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Those shouts from Labour Members emphasise the absurdity of that thought. There are many people in all parties who want an effective, excellent trade union movement, but the right hon. Gentleman does not recognise that in certain circumstances through a defect in the law there can be tyranny within the movement. We do not want that. We want the movement to achieve the maximum success based on the voluntary association which was the basis of its design. We do not want it done by compulsion. I should have thought that the Secretary of State and his colleagues would want the same.

I hope that we shall press for the inclusion of the Lords amendment in the Bill.

Question put, That this House doth disagree with Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 270, Noes 276.

Division No. 103.]
AYES
[4.55 p.m.


Archer, Peter
Ashley, Jack
Atkins, Ronald


Armstrong, Ernest
Ashton, Joe
Atkinson, Norman




Bagier, Gordon, A. T.
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)


Barnett, (Guy Greenwich)
Grant, John (Islington, C.)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Barnett, Joel (Heywood &amp; Royton)
Griffiths, Eddie (Sheffield, Brightside)
Murray, Ronald King


Baxter, William
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Newens, Stanley (Harlow)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Hamilton, William (Fife, C.)
Oakes, Gordon


Bennett, Andrew F. (Stockport, N.)
Hamling, William
Ogden, Eric


Bidwell, Sydney
Hardy, Peter
O'Halloran, Michael


Bishop, E. S.
Harper, Joseph
O'Malley, Brian


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Orbach, Maurice


Boardman, H.
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Ovenden, John


Booth, Albert
Hattersley, Roy
Owen, Dr. David


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Hatton, Frank
Padley, Walter


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Palmer, Arthur


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Heffer, Eric S.
Park, George (Coventry, N. E.)


Bradley, Tom
Henderson, Douglas (Ab'rd'nsh're, E)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Hooley, Frank
Perry, Ernest G.


Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan)
Horam, John
Phipps, Dr. Colin


Brown, Ronald (H'kney, S. &amp; Sh'ditch)
Howell, Denis (B'ham, Small Heath)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Springb'rn
Huckfield, Leslie
Prescott, John


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (H'gey, Wood Green)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Price, Christopher (Lewisham, W.)


Callaghan, Jim (M'dd'ton &amp; Pr'wch)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Price, William (Rugby)


Campbell, Ian
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, North)
Radice, Giles


Cant, R. B.
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Reid, George


Carter, Ray
Hunter, Adam
Richardson, Miss Jo


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (L'p'l, Edge Hl)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Irving, Rt. Hn. Sydney (Dartford)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Clemitson, Ivor
Jackson, Colin
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Cocks, Michael
Janner, Greville
Roderick, Caerwyn E.


Cohen, Stanley
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Coleman, Donald
Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Rodgers, William (Teesside, St'ckton)


Colquhoun, Mrs. M. N.
Jenkins, Hugh (W'worth, Putney)
Rooker, J. W.


Conlan, Bernard
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (B'ham, St'fd)
Rose, Paul B.


Cook, Robert F. (Edinburgh, C.)
John, Brynmor
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, Maryhill)
Johnson, James (K'ston upon Hull, W)
Rowlands, Edward


Crawshaw, Richard
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Sandelson, Neville


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Selby, Harry


Cryer, G. R.
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Shaw, Arnold (Redbridge, Ilford, S.)


Cunningham, G. (Isl'ngt'n, S &amp; F'sb'ry)
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Dalyell, Tam
Judd, Frank
Short, Rt. Hn. E. (N'ctle-u-Tyne)


Davidson, Arthur
Kaufman, Gerald
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hamp'n, N. E.)


Davies, Bryan (Enfield, N.)
Kelley, Richard
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (L'sham, D'ford)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Kerr, Russell
Silverman, Julius


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Skinner, Dennis


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Kinnock, Neil
Small, William


Deakins, Eric
Lamborn, Harry
Snape, Peter


Dean, Joseph (Leeds, W.)
Lamond, James
Spearing, Nigel


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Latham, Arthur (City of W'minster P'ton)
Spriggs, Leslie


Delargy, Hugh
Lawson, George (Motherwell &amp; Wishaw)
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Leadbitter, Ted
Stallard, A. W.


Dempsey, James
Lee, John
Stewart, Rt. Hn. M. (H'eth, Fulh'm)


Doig, Peter
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Dormand, J. D.
Lewis, Arthur (Newham, N.)
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Stott, Roger


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lipton, Marcus
Strang, Gavin


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth
Loughlin, Charles
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Edelman, Maurice
Loyden, Eddie
Summerskill, Rt. Hn. Shirley


Edge, Geoff
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Swain, Thomas


Edwards, Robert (W'hampton, S. E.)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, W.)
Thomas, D. E. (Merioneth)


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scunthorpe)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
McCartney, Hugh
Thorne, Stan (Preston, S.)


English, Michael
MacCormack, Iain
Tierney, Sydney


Ennals, David
McElhone, Frank
Tinn, James


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Tomlinson, John


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
McGuire, Michael
Tomney, Frank


Ewing, Mrs. Winifred (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Maclennan, Robert
Torney, Tom


Faulds, Andrew
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Tuck, Raphael


Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
McNamara, Kevin
Urwin, T. W.


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Madden, M. O. F.
Varley, Rt. Hn. Eric G.


Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)
Magee, Bryan
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Flannery, Martin
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, Ladywood)


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Marks, Kenneth
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Marquand, David
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Foot, Rt. Hn. Michael
Marshall, Dr. Edmund (Goole)
Watkins, David


Ford, Ben
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Watt, Hamish


Forrester, John
Meacher, Michael
Weitzman, David


Fowler, Gerry (The Wrekin)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Wellbeloved, James


Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)
Mendelson, John
White, James


Freeson, Reginald
Mikardo, Ian
Whitehead, Phillip


Galpern, Sir Myer
Millan, Bruce
Whitlock, William


Garrett, John (Norwich, S.)
Miller, Dr. M. S. (E. Kilbride)
Wigley, Dafydd (Caernarvon)


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


George, Bruce
Molloy, William
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Gilbert, Dr. John
Moonman, Eric
Williams, Alan Lee (Hvrng, Hchurch)


Golding, John
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Williams, Rt. Hn. Shirley (H'f'd &amp; St'ge)


Gourlay, Harry
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)







Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
Woodall, Alec



Wilson, Gordon (Dundee, E.)
Woof, Robert
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)
Wrigglesworth, Ian
Mr. Thomas Cox and


Wilson, William (Coventry, S. E.)
Young, David (Bolton, E.)
Mr. James A. Dunn.


Wise, Mrs. Audrey






NOES


Adley, Robert
Fisher, Sir Nigel
Lewis, Kenneth (Rtland &amp; Stmford)


Aitken, Jonathan
Fookes, Miss Janet
Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; Waterloo)


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'field)
Loveridge, John


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Fox, Marcus
Luce, Richard


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
MacArthur, Ian


Archer, Jeffrey
Freud, Clement
McCrindle, R. A.


Atkins, Rt. Hn. Humphrey (Spelthorne)
Fry, Peter
Macfarlane, Neil


Awdry, Daniel
Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D.
MacGregor, John


Beith, A. J.
Gardiner, George (Reigate &amp; Banstead)
McLaren, Martin


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Fareham)
Gardner, Edward (S. Fylde)
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. M. (Farnham)


Benyon, W.
Gibson-Watt, Rt. Hn. David
McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)


Berry, Hon. Anthony
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)


Biffen, John
Glyn, Dr. Alan
Madel, David


Biggs-Davison, John
Godber, Rt. Hn. Joseph
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Blaker, Peter
Goodhart, Philip
Marten, Neil


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.)
Goodhew, Victor
Mather, Carol


Boscawen, Hon. Robert
Goodlad, A.
Maude, Angus


Boyson, Dr. Rhodes (Brent, N.)
Gorst, John
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald


Bradford, Rev. R.
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Mawby, Ray


Braine, Sir Bernard
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Bray, Ronald
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Mayhew, Christopher (G'wh, W'wch, E)


Brewis, John
Gray, Hamish
Mayhew, Patrick (Royal T'bridgeWells)


Brittan, John
Grieve, Percy
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Miller, Hal (B'grove &amp; R'ditch)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Grist, Ian
Miscampbell, Norman


Bryan, Sir Paul
Grylls, Michael
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Gurden, Harold
Moate, Roger


Buck, Antony
Hall, Sir John
Molyneaux, James


Budgen, Nick
Hall-Davies, A. G. F.
Money, Ernle


Bulmer, Esmond
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Moore, J. E. M. (Croydon, C.)


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Hannam, John
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.


Carlisle, Mark
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Morris, Mitchell (Northampton, S.)


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Hastings, Stephen
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Carson, John
Havers, Sir Michael
Morrison, Peter (City of Chester)


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Hayhoe, Barney
Mudd, David


Channon, Paul
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Neave, Alrey


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Henderson, J. S. B. (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Neubert, Michael


Churchill, W. S.
Heseltine, Michael
Newton, Tony (Braintree)


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Higgins, Terence
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Clark, William (Croydon, S.)
Hill, James A.
Normanton, Tom


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Holland, Philip
Nott, John


Clegg, Walter
Hooson, Emlyn
Onslow, Cranley


Cockcroft, John
Hordern, Peter
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


Cooke, Robert (Bristol, W.)
Howe, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Surry, E.)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Cope, John
Howell, David (Guildford)
Osborn, John


Cormack, Patrick
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, North)
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)


Corrie, John
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Costain, A. P.
Hunt, John
Paisley, Rev. Ian


Craig, Rt. Hn. William (Belfast, W.)
Hurd, Douglas
Pardoe, John


Critchley, Julian
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Parkinson, Cecil (Hertfordshire, S.)


Crouch, David
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Pattie, Geoffrey


Crowder, F. P.
James, David
Percival, Ian


Davies, Rt. John (Knutsford)
Jenkin, Rt. Hn. P. (R'dge W'std &amp; W'fd)
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. James
Jessel, Toby
Pink, R. Bonner


Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Prior, Rt. Hn. James


Dixon, Piers
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Raison, Timothy


Dodds-Parker, Sir Douglas
Jopling, Michael
Rathbone, Tim


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Redmond, Robert


Drayson, Burnaby
Kilfedder, James A.
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Kimball, Marcus
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Dunlop, John
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David (H't'gd'ns're)


Durant, Tony
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Renton, R. T. (Mid-Sussex)


Dykes, Hugh
Kirk, Peter
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Ridsdale, Julian


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Elliott, Sir William
Knox, David
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N. W.)


Emery, Peter
Lamont, Norman
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Eyre, Reginald
Lane, David
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Fairgrieve, Russell
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Farr, John
Latham, Michael (Mellon)
Rosel, Hugh (Hornsey)


Fell, Anthony
Lawrence, Ivan
Sainsbnry, Tim


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Lawson, Nigel (Blaby)
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Fidler, Michael
Le Marchant, Spencer
Scott-Hopkins, James


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)







Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Stokes, John
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Shelton, Wiliam (L'mb'th, Streath'm)
Stradling Thomas, John
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Shersby, Michael
Tapsell, Peter
Wall, Patrick


Silvester, Fred
Taylor, Edward M. (Glgow, C'cart)
Weatherill, Bernard


Sims, Roger
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Sinclair, Sir George
Tebbit, Norman
Wiggin, Jerry


Skeet, T. H. H.
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Winstanley, Dr. Michael


Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy
Winterton, Nicholas


Smith, John (W'wick &amp; L'm'ngton)
Townsend, C. D.
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Spence, John
Trotter, Neville
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Spicer, Michael (Worcestershire, S.)
Tugendhat, Christopher
Worsley, Sir Marcus


Sproat, Iain
Tyler, Paul
Young, Sir George (Ealing, Acton)


Stainton, Keith
van Straubenzee, W. R.



Stanbrook, Ivor
Viggers, Peter
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Stanley, John
Waddington, David
Mr. Paul Hawkins and


Steel, David
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)
Dr. Gerard Vaughan.


Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Wakeham, John



Stodart, R. Hn. A. (Edinburgh, W.)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause B

RULES OF TRADE UNIONS AND EMPLOYERS' ASSOCIATIONS

Lords Amendment: No. 4, in page 4A, line 36, at end insert the following new Clause B—

"(1) The rules of every trade union and employers' association shall contain provisions in respect of the matters mentioned in the following subsections of this section.
(2) The rules must specify the name of the trade union or employers' association, the address of its principal office and the objects for which it was established.
(3) The rules must make provision as to the purposes for which, and the manner in which, any property or funds of the trade union or employers' association are authorised to be applied or invested.
(4) If any financial benefits are to be available for members of the trade union or employers' association out of its property or funds, the rules must make provision as to the amounts of those benefits and the circumstances in which they are to be available to members.
(5) The rules must specify the manner in which any rules of the trade union or employers' association can be made, altered or revoked.
(6) The rules must make provision for the election or appointment of officers and for the manner in which officers can be removed from office.
(7) The rules must make provision:—

(a) for the election of a governing body and for its re-election at reasonable intervals;
(b) for the manner in which members of the governing body can be removed from office.

(8) If the trade union or employers' association has officials (whether they are shop stewards, workplace representatives or other officials) who are not officers of the trade union or employers' association, the rules must make provision for their election or appointment

and for the manner in which they can be removed from office.
(9) The rules must make provision as to the manner in which, for any purposes of the trade union or employers' association, elections are to be held or ballots taken, including the following:—

(a) notification of vacancies and qualification of candidates;
(b) making of nominations;
(c) canvassing or content of election addresses, where these are permitted;
(d) elegibility for voting in any such election or ballot;
(e) procedure preparatory to any election or ballot;
(f) the procedure for counting and scrutiny of the votes and ballot papers; and
(g) the procedure for the declaration or notification of the result of any such election or ballot.

(10) The rules must specify the descriptions of persons who are eligible for membership of the trade union or employers' association or a branch or section of the trade union or employers' association and the procedure for dealing with applications for membership, including provisions for appeals against decisions of the committee or other body responsible for determining such applications.
(11) The rules must specify:—

(a) the offences for which the trade union or employers' association is entitled under the rules to expel a member or take other disciplinary action, and the penalties applicable for each of those offences;
(b) the procedure for the hearing of cases in which offences against the rules are alleged; and
(c) the procedure with respect to appeals against any decision on any such hearing.

(12) The rules must prescribe a procedure for settling disputes between a member and the trade union or employers' association or an officer of the trade union or employers' association.
(13) In making provision for any hearing or a determination of any question, whether in relation to an alleged offence, an appeal or a dispute, the rules shall be so framed as not to depart from, or permit any departure from, the rules of natural justice."

Mr. Booth: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): We shall take at the same time Lords amendment No. 6, in Clause 5, page 5, line 37, after "association" insert
or that its rules do not comply with the provisions of this Act.

Mr. Booth: Lords Amendment No. 4 makes detailed provisions with which trade unions and employers' associations would have to comply in drawing up their rules. The amendment is based almost entirely on recommendations made by the Donovan Commission. It takes no account of the Trades Union Congress response to the adverse criticism by Donovan of some union rule books. That criticism was taken seriously by the TUC. It has resulted in considerable improvements being made to some trade union rule books so as to meet the Donovan criticisms.
It is worth recalling that the TUC decision at Croydon in 1969 resulted in the TUC advising its member unions that they should apply very much higher standards to their rule books than the standards which would be required by the Lords amendment which we are now considering. It might be useful to the House if I indicate some examples of the way in which the TUC guidance to unions exceeded the standards set out in the amendment.
The TUC guidance indicates that unions in framing their rules should include within the provisions the right of appeal by a member to a body of higher authority when a decision is taken by a lower body or a branch within the union which in any way disadvantages the member or subjects him to a fine.
The TUC guidance to unions on rules requires that the powers of the appeal body to reinstate a member or reimburse his fine should be covered clearly and specifically within the rules. The guidance requires that where an expelled member decides to exercise his right of appeal he should be entitled to retain his membership while he exercises that right. All of these provisions of rules required by the TUC circular to affiliated unions do not apply under or are not required by this amendment.
The TUC requirement requires a union to set out within its rule book who has

authority to call strikes and who has authority to end them. I hope to carry a large number of hon. Members opposite with me when I suggest that this is a rather important matter to have contained within the rules of a union. If we apply the same sort of consideration to employers' associations, as we must if we are to take the amendment seriously, presumably we would expect employers' association rules to require some very clear statement as to who has authority to order lockouts in certain cases and who has authority to terminate them.
The TUC went on to consider, in giving directions to unions on the requirements of their rule books, the machinery that a union should possess for dealing with complaints on the conduct of appeals within the union. All of these are matters which are perfectly proper for the TUC to require of its member unions to be within their rule books.
The House of Lords, by its amendment, apparently considers that these standards are not such as can be required by law. I believe that it is completely commensurate with the position we take that we should accept that, if we are to have higher standards of unions rules than those set out in the amendment, it can only be achieved and made effective by a body which commands the respect of and has the moral authority within the trade union movement to require unions to have higher standards of rule book. I therefore put it to the House that the higher standards achieved by the democratic machinery of responsible bodies in a free society is entirely desirable.

Sir Raymond Gower: It is not uncommon for professional bodies and other associations to have higher requirements than those required by the law. As the requirements in the Lords amendment do not exclude the TUC from having its own higher requirements, why does the hon. Gentleman object to these modest requirements in statutory form?

Mr. Booth: The Donovan Commission having made these criticisms, caused the TUC to require what should be done in advance of any consideration of legal requirements as to the register. I think that when any democratic machinery of responsible bodies, be they trade unions


or employers' associations, responds to the criticisms made by a Royal Commission, we should have proper regard for that fact. The House will surely consider it eminently desirable that we should not have to have recourse to law to obtain high standards of rules from democratic bodies in a free society. If we do, we are admitting to some extent that these bodies do not exercise the standards as democratic bodies that we would expect of them.
Lords Amendment No. 4 sets out lower standards by law, and we must acknowledge that those standards are inferior to what can be done by a free body of men and women, acting freely in response to what they see to be a genuine adverse criticism of one aspect of the way they conducted themselves.

Sir Edward Brown: Surely the TUC is purely and simply an advisory body, and has been since its inception. It has no powers of its own. What if unions, having their own autonomy, decide to reject advice from the TUC, as some of them have done in the past? How will that support the case the hon. Gentleman is putting?

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Booth: In the last analysis, of course, the TUC expels a union which does not comply with the requirements which are considered by the affiliated unions as a whole to be standards proper for unions in membership of the TUC. The TUC has exercised that prerogative recently, and has shown the importance it attaches to member unions complying with certain requirements.
The TUC thought that the question of rules was sufficiently important to have a special congress. It got a unanimous decision on the proposition that the TUC should have the authority to issue its requirements of guidance on rules, and there is no suggestions that unions in general have not complied with that guidance. On the contrary, it is generally admitted that those few unions which were previously failing in this respect have generally responded to the TUC's wishes.
I do not contend that the last word has been spoken on this matter, or that the TUC might in future go even further and set yet higher standards for union

rules. I do contend that where a freely elected body can require of its membership such high standards of rules it is eminently desirable that it should do so. If we pass legislation setting lower standards, there is a danger—and I put it no higher—that trade unions or any other bodies faced with such a situation will say, "We are meeting the legal requirements, so why should we go further?"
But if there are no legal arguments, if there are no lower standards but only the high standards of bodies setting them freely, that is eminently to be desired. It is certainly better to have such standards than those minimum standards which may be enforced by law but which are lower than would have been freely produced.
I think that I can show that the point I am making on the enforcement or requirement to comply with the regulation of rules in Lords Amendment No. 4 is weak and would lead to defects and deficiencies. Lords Amendment No. 6 lays down the sanctions for non-compliance with these rule requirements.
The effect is to exclude from the list of unions kept by the Registrar of Friendly Societies those unions which do not comply with the rules requirements. The main consequence for unions excluded from the list would be a loss of tax relief on their benevolent funds. We know that a number of unions, because of their failure to register under the 1971 Act, have lost the benefit of tax relief on their benevolent funds. It has not been a refractive means of requiring unions to register. Many have been prepared to forgo large amounts of tax relief rather than register.
There would also be certain other disadvantages for those unions which would not comply, including a difficulty or impediment in transferring property, which would be made somewhat easier for those unions which are registered. Unions may also have to go to some trouble to prove in a court that they are unions within the meaning of the Act in order to secure the immunity of Clause 11 of the Bill, but that is not my main complaint against this form of sanction.
My main complaint is that if one seeks as a sanction the debarment from a union of a right to have tax relief on its benevolent funds through failure to comply


with a details set of rules requirements which are far lower than the high standards set by the TUC, that is creating a situation which on the basis of experience of the 1971 Act would not necessarily secure compliance and may be bitterly resented.
I submit that we disagree with the Lords in both of the amendments.

Mr. Prior: We believe that the Bill should become the new basis of our labour law in this country. We have said that over and over again from the Official Opposition. We have always made clear that our purpose was to ensure that the country was no longer divided on this question and that it was united in facing up to the critical issues now before it.
We have always made clear, right from the time of our reasoned amendment on Second Reading, that it was our intention to ensure that the Bill would be a satisfactory basis for our future labour law. The difference between us and the Government is that we have felt the need to strike a rational balance between the conflicting interests at each point on the Bill, while the Government have never felt the need to argue the position they have taken up.
We seek to improve the Bill wherever we feel it may be improved. We in the House—indeed the Government themselves—have a duty to the nation to ensure that legislation reflects national rather than sectional interests.
On 10th July 1974 my right hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan) said:
I am seeking, too, to defend Parliament and the people we represent, and I include the rights of unions and their members. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State was right when he said that industrial relations legislation requires the consent of the unions. But it requires the consent not of the unions alone, still less of a mere powerful minority among them. It requires the consent of all work people, management and the great mass of our people inside and outside trade unions whom we represent in Parliament.
My right hon. Friend also stated:
An article in the Sun newspaper two days ago referred to this transfer of power from Parliament to the unions in these words:
'Rarely, if ever, has Parliament offered so unconditional a surrender.'"[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th July 1974.]

No one in the House could accept that for Parliament to offer such an unconditional surrender is a healthy position, and it is not one that the Secretary of State in any other capacity than that he now holds would have accepted for one moment. He would have been the first at the Dispatch Box, or below the Gangway, to say that it was a transferring of the rights of Parliament to a body outside Parliament.
It is in that considered way that we approach the amendment which the Government have moved to the Lords amendment. The Lords amendment writes into the Bill a set of rules which the Minister of State has said are the minimum he thinks right. He says that the trade unions have in many cases gone far beyond the rules and have accepted a set of rules and standards higher than the basic set of standards which we seek to write into the Bill.
It will not hurt or affect any union which already has a better set of rules. All it seeks to do is state the minimum set of rules. If the Government had wanted to say that the set of rules was not good enough they could have come along in Committee or on Report and produced a total set of rules which perhaps the trade unions are now putting into effect.
The Minister of State seeks to justify not writing the amendment into the Bill because he says it might result in unions going for lower standards than they have at the moment. I do not believe that unions, having set higher standards, will say that those standards are too high and that they will have a lower set of rules. That will not happen. Unions which have a higher standard will maintain that standard. We hope, as the Minister thinks, that all unions would do this. Not all unions have done so, as we understand. If they do not, this is a set of rules which they should follow.
Parliament ought to lay down the minimum standard on all matters of this kind. This is not a great issue of over-riding importance. I would have hoped that in view of what happened earlier this afternoon the right hon. Gentleman might accept that this is a minimum requirement and not an unreasonable one. If unions have this higher standard of rules already they have nothing whatever to


fear from the second of the two amendments. This is merely a way of making certain that the set of rules that we have put in is enforced.
I do not suppose from what the Minister of State has said that it will apply to or affect more than a handful of unions. They will have to bring their set of rules up to the minimum standard required. That was put forward in "In Place of Strife" and was warmly supported by the Labour Government of that time. This is not designed to make the job of the unions

or of the TUC more difficult. It is plainly a matter of common sense.

For Parliament to pass the Bill without having some standards such as are laid down in the amendment would be a derogation of the duty of Parliament, and I hope that the House will take the same view as their Lordships.

Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 269, Noes 280.

Division No. 104.]
AYES
[5.30 p.m.


Archer, Peter
Edwards, Robert (W'hampton, S. E.)
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)


Armstrong, Ernest
Ellis, John (Bragg &amp; Scunthorpe)
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)


Ashley, Jack
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)


Ashton, Joe
English, Michael
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)


Atkins, Ronald
Ennals, David
Judd, Frank


Atkinson, Norman
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Kaufman, Gerald


Bagier, Gordon, A. T.
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Kelley, Richard


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Ewing, Mrs. Winifred (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Kerr, Russell


Barnett, Joel (Heywood &amp; Royton)
Faulds, Andrew
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Baxter, William
Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Kinnock, Neil


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Lamborn, Harry


Bennett, Andrew F. (Stockport, N.)
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)
Lamond, James


Bidwell, Sydney
Flannery, Martin
Latham, Arthur (Cityof W'minster P'ton)


Bishop, E. S.
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Lawson, George (Motherwell &amp; Wishaw)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Leadbitter, Ted


Boardman, H.
Foot, Rt. Hn. Michael
Lee, John


Booth, Albert
Ford, Ben
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Forrester, John
Lewis, Arthur (Newham, N.)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Fowler, Gerry (The Wrekin)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)
Lipton, Marcus


Bradley, Tom
Freeson, Reginald
Loughlin, Charles


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Galpern, Sir Myer
Loyden, Eddie


Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan)
Garrett, John (Norwich, S.)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Brown, Ronald (H'kney, S. &amp; Sh'ditch)
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, W.)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Springb'rn
George, Bruce
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (H'gey, Wood Green)
Gilbert, Dr. John
McCartney, Hugh


Callaghan, Jim (M'dd'ton &amp; Pr'wch)
Golding, John
MacCormick, Iain


Campbell, Ian
Gourley, Harry
McElhone, Frank


Cant, R. B.
Grant, George (Morpeth)
MacFarquhar, Roderick


Carter, Ray
Grant, John (Islington, C.)
McGuire, Michael


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Griffiths, Eddie (Sheffield, Brightside)
Maclennan, Robert


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Clemitson, Ivor
Hamilton, William (Fife, C.)
McNamara, Kevin


Cocks, Michael
Hamling, William
Madden, M. O. F.


Cohen, Stanley
Hardy, Peter
Magee, Bryan


Colquhoun, Mrs. M. N.
Harper, Joseph
Mallalieu, J. P. W.


Conlan, Bernard
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Marks, Kenneth


Cook, Robert F. (Edinburgh, C.)
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Marquand, David


Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, Maryhill)
Hattersley, Roy
Marshall, Dr. Edmund (Goole)


Crawshaw, Richard
Hatton, Frank
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Meacher, Michael


Cryer, G. R.
Heffer, Eric S.
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Cunningham, G. (Isl'ngt'n, S &amp; F'sb'ry)
Henderson, Douglas (Ab'rd'nsh're, E)
Mendelson, John


Dalyell, Tam
Hooley, Frank
Mikardo, Ian


Davidson, Arthur
Horam, John
Millan, Bruce


Davies, Bryan (Enfield, N.)
Howell, Denis (B'ham, Small Heath)
Miller, Dr. M. S. (E. Klibride)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Huckfield, Leslie
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Molloy, William


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Moonman, Eric


Deakins, Eric
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, North)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds, W.)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Hunter, Adam
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)


Delargy, Hugh
Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (L'p'l, Edge Hl)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Irving, Rt. Hn. Sydney (Dartford)
Murray, Ronald King


Dempsey, James
Jackson, Colin
Newens, Stanley (Harlow)


Doig, Peter
Janner, Greville
Oakes, Gordon


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Ogden, Eric


Duffy, A. E. P.
Jeger, Mrs. Lena
O'Halloran, Michael


Dunn, James A.
Jenkins, Hugh (W'worth, Putney)
O'Malley, Brian


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (B'ham, St'fd)
Orbach, Maurice


Edelman, Maurice
John, Brynmor
Ovenden, John


Edge, Geoff
Johnson, James (K'ston upon Hull, W)
Owen, Dr. David




Padley, Walter
Short, Rt. Hn. E. (N'ctle-u-Tyne)
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, Ladywood)


Palmer, Arthur
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hamp'n, N. E.)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Park, George (Coventry, N. E.)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (L'sham, D'ford)
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Parker, John (Dagenham)
Silverman, Julius
Watkins, David


Parry, Robert
Skinner, Dennis
Watt, Hamish


Pavitt, Laurie
Small, William
Weitzman, David


Perry, Ernest G.
Snape, Peter
Wellbeloved, James


Phipps, Dr. Colin
Spriggs, Leslie
White, James


Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg
Stallard, A. W.
Whitehead, Phillip


Prescott, John
Stewart, Rt. Hn. M. (H'eth, Fulh'm)
Whitlock, William


Price, Christopher (Lewisham, W.)
Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Wigley, Dafydd (Caernarvon)


Price, William (Rugby)
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Radice, Giles
Stott, Roger
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Reid, George
Strang, Gavin
Williams, Alan Lee (Hvrng, Hchurch)


Richardson, Miss Jo
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Williams, Rt. Hn. Shirley (H'f'd &amp; St'ge)


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Summerskill, Rt. Hn. Shirley
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Swain, Thomas
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Robertson, John (Paisley)
Thomas, D. E. (Merioneth)
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee, E.)


Roderick, Caerwyn E.
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Thorne, Stan (Preston, S.)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S. E.)


Rodgers, William (Teesside, St'ckton)
Tierney, Sydney
Wise, Mrs. Audrey


Rooker, J. W.
Tinn, James
Woodall, Alec


Rose, Paul B.
Tomlinson, John
Woof, Robert


Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Tomney, Frank
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Rowlands, Edward
Torney, Tom
Young, David (Bolton, E.)


Sandelson, Neville
Tuck, Raphael



Selby, Harry
Urwin, T. W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Shaw, Arnold (Redbridge, Ilford, S.)
Varley, Rt. Hn. Eric G.
Mr. Thomas Cox and


Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
Mr. Donald Coleman.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Davies, Rt. John (Knutsford)
Gurden, Harold


Aitken, Jonathan
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. James
Hall, Sir John


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Dixon, Piers
Hannam, John


Archer, Jeffrey
Dodds-Parker, Sir Douglas
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)


Atkins, Rt. Hn. Humphrey (Spelthorne)
Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Hastings, Stephen


Awdry, Daniel
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Havers, Sir Michael


Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord
Drayson, Burnaby
Hawkins, Paul


Beith, A. J.
Dykes, Hugh
Hayhoe, Barney


Bell, Ronald
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Fareham)
Dunlop, John
Henderson, J. S. B. (Dunbartonshire, E.)


Berry, Hon. Anthony
Durant, Tony
Heseltine, Michael


Biggs-Davison, John
Eden, Rt. He. Sir John
Higgins, Terence


Blaker, Peter
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Hill, James A.


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.)
Elliott, Sir William
Holland, Philip


Boscawen, Hon. Robert
Emery, Peter
Hordern, Peter


Boyson, Dr. Rhodes (Brent, N.)
Eyre, Reginald
Howe, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Surrey, E.)


Bradford, Rev. R.
Fairgrieve, Russell
Howell, David (Guildford)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Farr, John
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, North)


Bray, Ronald
Fell, Anthony
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)


Brewis, John
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Hunt, John


Brittan, Leon
Fidler, Michael
Hurd, Douglas


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Finsberg, Geoffrey
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Fisher, Sir Nigel
Iremonger, T. L.


Bryan, Sir Paul
Fookes, Miss Janet
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'field)
James, David


Buck, Antony
Fox, Marcus
Jenkin, Rt. Hn. P. (R'dge W'std &amp; W'fd)


Budgen, Nick
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Jessel, Toby


Bulmer, Esmond
Freud, Clement
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Fry, Peter
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Carlisle, Mark
Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D.
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Gardiner, George (Reigate &amp; Banstead)
Jopling, Michael


Carson, John
Gardner, Edward (S. Fylde)
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Gibson-Watt, Rt. Hn. David
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine


Channon, Paul
Gilmour, Rt. Hn. Ian (Ch'sh'&amp;Amsh'm)
Kilfedder, James A.


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Kimball, Marcus


Churchill, W. S.
Glyn, Dr. Alan
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Clark, A. K. M. (Plymouth, Sutton)
Godber, Rt. Hn. Joseph
King, Tom (Bridgwater)


Clark, William (Croydon, S.)
Goodhart, Philip
Kirk, Peter


Craig, Rt. Hn. William (Belfast, W.)
Goodhew, Victor
Kitson, Sir Timothy


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Goodlad, A.
Knight, Mrs. Jill


Clegg, Walter
Gorst, John
Knox, David


Cockcroft, John
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Lamont, Norman


Cooke, Robert (Bristol, W.)
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Lane, David


Cope, John
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Cormack, Patrick
Gray, Hamish
Latham, Michael (Melton)


Corrie, John
Grieve, Percy
Lawrence, Ivan


Costain, A. P.
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Lawson, Nigel (Blaby)


Critchley, Julian
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Crouch, David
Grist, Ian
Lewis, Kenneth (Rtland &amp; Stmford)


Crowder, F. P.
Grylls, Michael
Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; Waterloo)







Loveridge, John
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)
Sproat, Iain


Luce, Richard
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Stainton, Keith


MacArthur, Ian
Paisley, Rev. Ian
Stanbrook, Ivor


McCrindle, R. A.
Pardoe, John
Stanley, John


Macfarlane, Neil
Parkinson, Cecil (Hertfordshire, S.)
Steel, David


MacGregor, John
Pattie, Geoffrey
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


McLaren, Martin
Percival, Ian
Stodart, Rt. Hn. A. (Edinburgh, W.)


Macmillan, Rt. Hn. M. (Farnham)
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
Stokes, John


McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)
Pink, R. Bonner
Stradling Thomas, John


McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Tapsell, Peter


Madel, David
Prior, Rt. Hn. James
Taylor, Edward M. (Glgow, C'cart)


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Raison, Timothy
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)


Marten, Neil
Rathbone, Tim
Tebbit, Norman


Mather, Carol
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Margaret


Maude, Angus
Redmond, Robert
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
Townsend, C. D.


Mawby, Ray
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Trotter, Neville


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David (H't'gd'ns're)
Tugendhat, Christopher


Mayhew, Christopher (G'wh, W'wch, E)
Renton, R. T. (Mid-Sussex)
Tyler, Paul


Mayhew, Patrick (Royal T'bridge Wells)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Ridsdale, Julian
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Miller, Hal (B'grove &amp; R'ditch)
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Viggers, Peter


Miscampbell, Norman
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.-W.)
Waddington, David


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Moate, Roger
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Wakeham, John


Molyneaux, James
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Money, Ernle
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Moore, J. E. M. (Croydon, C.)
Rost, Peter (Derbyshire, S.-E.)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Sainsbury, Tim
Wall, Patrick


Morris, Michael (Northampton, S.)
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Weatherill, Bernard


Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Scott-Hopkins, James
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Morrison, Peter (City of Chester)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Wiggin, Jerry


Mudd, David
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Winstanley, Dr. Michael


Neave, Airey
Shelton, Willam (L'mb'th, Streath'm)
Winterton, Nicholas


Neubert, Michael
Shersby, Michael
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Newton, Tony (Braintree)
Silvester, Fred
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Sims, Roger
Worsley, Sir Marcus


Normanton, Tom
Sinclair, Sir George
Young, Sir George (Ealing, Acton)


Nott, John
Skeet, T. H. H.



Onslow, Cranley
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'm'ngton)
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and


Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Spence, John
Mr. W. Benyon.


Osborn, John
Spicer, Michael (Worcestershire, S.)

Question accordingly negatived.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Clause 5

LISTS OF TRADE UNIONS AND EMPLOYERS' ASSOCIATIONS

Lords Amendment: No. 6, in page 5, line 37, after "association" insert

"or that its rules do not comply with the provisions of this Act."

Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:

The House divided: Ayes 271, Noes 281.

Division No. 105.]
AYES
[5.42 p.m.


Archer, Peter
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Springb'rn
Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)


Armstrong, Ernest
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (H'gey, Wood Green)
Davies, Ifor (Gower)


Ashley, Jack
Callaghan, Jim (M'dd'ton &amp; Pr'wch)
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)


Ashton, Joe
Campbell, Ian
Deakins, Eric


Atkins, Ronald
Cant, R. B.
Dean, Joseph (Leeds, W.)


Atkinson, Norman
Carter, Ray
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey


Bagier, Gordon, A. T.
Carter-Jones, Lewis
Delargy, Hugh


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund


Barnett, Joel (Heywood &amp; Royton)
Clemitson, Ivor
Dempsey, James


Baxter, William
Cocks, Michael
Doig, Peter


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Cohen, Stanley
Dormand, J. D.


Bennett, Andrew F. (Stockport, N.)
Coleman, Donald
Douglas-Mann, Bruce


Bidwell, Sydney
Colquhoun, Mrs. M. N.
Duffy, A. E. P.


Bishop, E. S.
Conlon, Bernard
Dunn, James A.


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Cook, Robert F. (Edinburgh, C.)
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth


Boardman, H.
Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, Maryhill)
Edelman, Maurice


Booth, Albert
Crawshaw, Richard
Edge, Geoff


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Cronin, John
Edwards, Robert (W'hampton, S. E.)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scunthorpe)


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Cryer, G. R.
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)


Bradley, Tom
Cunningham, G. (Isl'ngt'n, S &amp; F'sb'ry)
English, Michael


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Dalyell, Tam
Ennals, David


Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan)
Davidson, Arthur
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)


Brown, Ronald (H'kney, S. &amp; Sh'ditch)
Davies, Bryan (Enfield, N.)
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)




Ewing, Mrs.Winifred (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Leadbitter, Ted
Rooker, J. W.


Faulds, Andrew
Lee, John
Rose, Paul B.


Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Lewis, Arthur (Newham, N.)
Rowlands, Edward


Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Sandelson, Neville


Flannery, Martin
Lipton, Marcus
Selby, Harry


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Loughlin, Charles
Shaw, Arnold (Redbridge, Ilford, S.)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Loyden, Eddie
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Foot, Rt. Hn. Michael
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Short, Rt. Hn. E. (N'ctle-u-Tyne)


Ford, Ben
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, W.)
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hamp'n, N. E.)


Forrester, John
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (L'sham, D'ford)


Fowler, Gerry (The Wrekin)
McCartney, Hugh
Silverman, Julius


Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)
MacCormack, Iain
Skinner, Dennis


Freeson, Reginald
McElhone, Frank
Small, William


Galpern, Sir Myer
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Snape, Peter


Garrett, John (Norwich, S.)
McGuire, Michael
Spearing, Nigel


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Maclennan, Robert
Spriggs, Leslie


George, Bruce
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Stallard, A. W.


Gilbert, Dr. John
McNamara, Kevin
Stewart, Rt. Hn. M. (H'sth, Fulh'm)


Golding, John
Madden, M. O. F.
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Gourley, Harry
Magee, Bryan
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Stott, Roger


Grant, John (Islington, C.)
Marks, Kenneth
Strang, Gavin


Griffiths, Eddie (Sheffield, Brightside)
Marquand, David
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Marshall, Dr. Edmund (Goole)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Hamilton, William (Fife, C.)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Swain, Thomas


Hamling, William
Meacher, Michael
Thomas, D. E. (Merioneth)


Hardy, Peter
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mendelson, John
Thorne, Stan (Preston, S.)


Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Mikardo, Ian
Tierney, Sydney


Hattersley, Roy
Millan, Bruce
Tinn, James


Hatton, Frank
Miller, Dr. M. S. (E. Kilbride)
Tomlinson, John


Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton. Itchen)
Tomney, Frank


Heffer, Eric S.
Molloy, William
Torney, Tom


Henderson, Douglas (Ab'rd'nsh're, E)
Moonman, Eric
Tuck, Raphael


Hooley, Frank
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Urwin, T. W.


Horam, John
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Varley, Rt. Hn. Eric G.


Howell, Denis (B'ham, Small Heath)
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Huckfield, Leslie
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, Ladywood)


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Murray, Ronald King
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Newens, Stanley (Harlow)
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, North)
Oakes, Gordon
Watkins, David


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Ogden, Eric
Watt, Hamish


Hunter, Adam
O'Halloran, Michael
Weitzman, David


Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (L'p'l, Edge Hl)
O'Malley, Brian
Wellbeloved, James


Irving, Rt. Hn. Sydney (Dartford)
Orbach, Maurice
White, James


Jackson, Colin
Ovenden, John
Whitehead, Phillip


Janner, Greville
Owen, Dr. David
Whitlock, William


Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Padley, Walter
Wigley, Dafydd (Caernarvon)


Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Palmer, Arthur
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Jenkins, Hugh (W'worth, Putney)
Park, George (Coventry, N. E.)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (B'ham, St'fd)
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hvrng, Hchurch)


John, Brynmor
Parry, Robert
Williams, Rt. Hn. Shirley (H'f'd &amp; St'ge)


Johnson, James (K'ston upon Hull, W)
Perry, Ernest G.
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Phipps, Dr. Colin
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee, E.)


Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Prescott, John
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Price, Christopher (Lewisham, W.)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S. E.)


Judd, Frank
Price, William (Rugby)
Wise, Mrs. Audrey


Kaufman, Gerald
Radice, Giles
Woodall, Alec


Kelley, Richard
Reid, George
Woof, Robert


Kerr, Russell
Richardson, Miss Jo
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Young, David (Bolton, E.)


Kinnock, Neil
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)



Lamborn, Harry
Robertson, John (Paisley)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Lamond, James
Roderick, Caerwyn E.
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Latham, Arthur (Cityof W'minster P'ton)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Mr. Thomas Cox.


Lawson, George (Motherwell &amp; Wlshaw)
Rodgers, William (Teesside, St'ckton)





NOES


Adley, Robert
Berry, Hon. Anthony
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)


Aitken, Jonathan
Biggs-Davison, John
Bryan, Sir Paul


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Blaker, Peter
Buchanan-Smith, Alick


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.)
Buck, Antony


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Body, Richard
Budgen, Nick


Archer, Jeffrey
Boscawen, Hon. Robert
Bulmer, Esmond


Atkins, Rt Hn. Humphrey (Spelthorne)
Boyson, Dr. Rhodes (Brent, N.)
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)


Awdry, Daniel
Bradford, Rev. R.
Carlisle, Mark


Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord
Brains, Sir Bernard
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert


Beith, A. J.
Bray, Ronald
Carson, John


Belt, Ronald
Brewis, John
Chalker, Mrs. Lynda


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Fareham)
Britten, Leon
Channon, Paul


Benyon, W.
Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher







Churchill, W. S.
Holland, Philip
Pardoe, John


Clark, A. K. M. (Plymouth, Sutton)
Hordern, Peter
Parkinson, Cecil (Hertfordshire. S.)


Clark, William (Croydon, S.)
Howe, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Surrey, E.)
Pattie, Geoffrey


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Howell, David (Guildford)
Percival, Ian


Clegg, Walter
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, North)
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John


Cockcroft, John
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Pink, R. Bonner


Cooke, Robert (Bristol, W.)
Hunt, John
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Cope, John
Hurd, Douglas
Prior, Rt. Hn. James


Cormack, Patrick
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Raison, Timothy


Corrie, John
Iremonger, T. L.
Rathbone, Tim


Costain, A. P.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Craig, Rt. Hn. William (Belfast, W.)
James, David
Redmond, Robert


Critchley, Julian
Jenkin, Rt. Hn. P. (R'dge W'std &amp; W'fd)
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Crouch, David
Jessel, Toby
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Crowder, F. P.
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David (H't'gd ns're)


Davies, Rt. John (Knutsford)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Renton, R. T. (Mid-Sussex)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. James
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Jopling, Michael
Ridsdale, Julian


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Dixon, Piers
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N. W.)


Dodds-Parker, Sir Douglas
Kilfedder, James A.
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Kimball, Marcus
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Drayson, Burnaby
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Kirk, Peter
Rost, Peter (Derbyshire, S. E.)


Dunlop, John
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Sainsbury, Tim


Durant, Tony
Knight, Mrs. Jill
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Dykes, Hugh
Knox, David
Scott-Hopkins, James


Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Lamont, Norman
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Lane, David
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Elliott, Sir William
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Shelton, William (L'mb'th, Streath'm)


Emery, Peter
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Shersby, Michael


Eyre, Reginald
Lawrence, Ivan
Silvester, Fred


Fairgrieve, Russell
Lawson, Nigel (Blaby)
Sims, Roger


Farr, John
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Sinclair, Sir George


Fell, Anthony
Lewis, Kenneth (Rtland &amp; Stmford)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; Waterloo)
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Fidler, Michael
Loveridge, John
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; Lm'inglon)


Finsberg, Geoffrey
MacArthur, Ian
Spence, John


Fisher, Sir Nigel
McCrindle, R. A.
Spicer, Michael (Worcestershire, S.)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Macfariane, Neil
Sproat, Iain


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'field)
MacGregor, John
Stainton, Keith


Fox, Marcus
McLaren, Martin
Stanbrook, Ivor


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. M. (Farnham)
Stanley, John


Freud, Clement
McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)
Steel, David


Fry, Peter
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D.
Madel, David
Stodart, Rt. Hn. A. (Edinburgh, W.)


Gardiner, George (Reigate &amp; Banstead)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Stokes, John


Gardner, Edward (S. Fylde)
Marten, Neil
Stradling Thomas, John


Gibson-Watt, Rt. Hn. David
Mather, Carol
Tapsell, Peter


Gilmour, Rt. Hn. Ian (Ch'sh' &amp; Amsh' m)
Maude, Angus
Taylor, Edward M. (Glgow, C'cart)


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, R. W.)


Glyn, Dr. Alan
Mawby, Ray
Tebbit, Norman


Godber, Rt. Hn. Joseph
Maxwell-Hyslop. R. J.
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Margaret


Goodhart, Philip
Mayhew, Christopher (G'wh, W'wch, E)
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Goodhew, Victor
Mayhew, Patrick (Royal T'bridge Wells)
Townsend, C. D.


Goodlad, A.
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Trotter, Neville


Gorst, John
Miller, Hal (B'grove &amp; R'ditch)
Tugendhat, Christopher


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Miscampbell, Norman
Tyler, Paul


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Moate, Roger
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Gray, Hamish
Molyneaux, James
Viggers, Peter


Grieve, Percy
Money, Ernle
Waddington, David


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Moore, J. E. M. (Croydon, C.)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Wakeham, John


Grist, Ian
Morris, Michael (Northampton, S.)
Welder, David (Clitheroe)


Grylls, Michael
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Gurden, Harold
Morrison, Peter (City of Chester)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Hall, Sir John
Mudd, David
Wall, Patrick


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Heave, Airey
Weatherill, Bernard


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Neubert, Michael
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Hannam, John
Newton, Tony (Braintree)
Wiggin, Jerry


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Nicholls, Sir Harmer
Winstanley, Dr. Michael


Hastings, Stephen
Normanton, Tom
Winterton, Nicholas


Havers, Sir Michael
Nott, John
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Hawkins, Paul
Onslow, Cranley
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Hayhoe, Barney
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Worsley, Sir Marcus


Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Young, Sir George (Ealing, Acton)


Henderson, J. S. B. (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Osborn, John



Heseltine, Michael
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Higgins, Terence
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Mr. Spencer Le Merchant and


Hill, James A.
Paisley, Rev. Ian
Mr. Richard Luce.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 10

ACTS IN CONTEMPLATION OF FURTHERANCE OF TRADE DISPUTES

Lords Amendment: No. 7, in page 9, line 9, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
(1) An act done by a person in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute shall not be actionable in tort on the ground only:

(a) that it induces another person to break a contract of employment; or
(b) that it consists in his threatening that a contract of employment (whether one to which he is a party or not) will be broken or that he will induce another person to break a contract of employment to which that other person is a party."

Mr. Foot: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
In some respects this is the most important amendment to be discussed today. As in the previous debates, I do not propose to retrace all the arguments which have been advanced. That would serve no purpose. I wish to underline why we believe that the amendment as it has come back from the House of Lords should be rejected and why we put forward a different way of dealing with the matter in our original proposals.
The suggestion was made quite frequently by Lord Hailsham in another place that we were misleading the House, or the country, about what we sought to incorporate in the Bill. He said that we had sought to give the impression that we were dealing solely with the 1971 Act and restoring the 1971 position, and that we were misleading people by not saying that our proposals contained some extension of immunities. I wish to repudiate any such suggestion. It should not be necessary for me to do so but, as the argument was used frequently in the House of Lords, perhaps I should repudiate it.
Paragraph 11(c) of the Consultative Document issued on 22nd March stated clearly that:
The immunity which existed before 1971 for persons inducing breaches of contracts of employment in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute would be restored and extended to interference with all types of contract (including commercial contracts)".
We have made that clear from the beginning, and we hold to that view now. It

would be a retrogressive step for the House to go back on that proposal which was originally in the Bill and which we should like to restore.
The first main ground on which I say that it is essential that the original Government proposals should be accepted rather than the amendment rests on the argument that I have used on previous clauses, but it is of even greater importance here. It is that Parliament in dealing with this question at least should make up its mind and be clear. As I have already said, three of the amendments which have been pushed through, two by the Opposition in the House of Commons and two in another place, are obscure and will lead to great difficulties in the courts. The arbitrary exclusion clause that we have passed is riddled with a jumble of legal confusions. The same applies to the union arrangements clause passed by the House in the extraordinary circumstances which we recall and con, firmed by the House of Lords in a way which prevents us from scrutinising it again.
There are two major clauses in the Bill of such obscurity that no one will know what they mean. If the House of Lords advice on this matter is taken, we shall again commit the same error. Any claim that the House of Lords ever had to be a revising Chamber of any distinction or even adequacy is completely destroyed by these events. The House of Lords refused even to examine the so-called Lever amendments that came from the House. They were not discussed in the House of Lords for more than a couple of minutes.
The acceptance of the clause, as I am seeking to prove not from evidence of my citing but from others, which it is proposed to place on the statute book if the House of Commons does not come to a wiser conclusion than did the House of Lords, will mean that Parliament is deliberately restoring a major obscurity in the law touching on a most important aspect. Anyone who disputes what I say—I do not suppose that anyone does—might examine the section of the Donovan Report which refers precisely to the question dealt with in the amendment, which turns partly on whether the words "contract of employment" are to be used or the word "contract" which would cover commercial contracts.
Several pages of the Donovan Report were devoted to this subject. The commission made a recommendation about the way in which the obscurity should be removed, which is precisely the way the Government chose. If the House is to proceed deliberately to restore this obscurity, it is necessary to read paragraph 884 of the Donovan Report, which indicates that many others besides the Donovan Commission came to this conclusion. Paragraph 884 reads as follows:
It will be seen that it refers only to a contract of employment. Trade union officials and others who induce a breach of any other kind of contract, whether in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute or not, still commit an actionable tort. We have received a number of representations to the effect that this situation should be altered and that section 3 should be amended so as to extend to all contracts and not merely to contracts of employment. These representations come from the TUC,"—
I know that Opposition Members do not care very much about the representations from the TUC—
a number of trade unions, some legal authors having a close knowledge of trade union law, and the Bar Council.
The Bar Council, therefore, recommended that this obscurity should be removed from the law.
It is true that our proposals go further than dealing only with that subject, but the Government clause in the original Bill dealt with the obscurity, whereas the Opposition and the House of Lords are deliberately proposing to reinstate the obscurity. That is what would happen if the House disagreed with our proposal to disagree with the House of Lords.
6.0 p.m.
I turn to the other aspect of the matter which we believe to be so serious from the point of view of the trade union movement. It might be argued by the Conservatives that their clause reinstates the provision of 1906. Some of the wording indicates that that is the situation, but as we have argued before—this is why Donovan said that such confusion had arisen—for a period after 1906 it seemed to operate satisfactorily and in a way in which commercial contracts were included. I shall not go through the cases again since they were covered in Committee and were all cited in the House of Lords, although they were disregarded by the Opposition there. But what happened

for a period was that the protections which trade unions exercised from about 1906 to the early 60s—protections which they had exercised reasonably in that period without fatal consequences for the nation at large—were whittled away by judicial decisions of one kind and another, including the invention of a new tort by Lord Denning. I know that I have to be careful on this matter, but as it was dealt with by the Lord Chancellor in another place I am sure that it is correct for me to do so. Those decisions were not contested in any formidable way at all.
Because of the obscurity of the 1906 position, even though the intention in 1906 for two or three decades appeared to be translated into effect, and because of the growing effect of the judicial decisions, Lord Donovan recommended that a change should be made. The wording of our provision is that which was recommended by Lord Donovan—but that has now been knocked out by the House of Lords. The House of Lords is recommending to Parliament that we should return to all the obscurities which Donovan condemned. That could mean that the rights of trade unions in sympathy strikes could be considerably impaired. It could mean a legal battle over some of these matters. It would mean that some questions involving the rights of unions to exercise their right of sympathetic strikes would have to go back to the courts to be settled—and settled in circumstances of complete obscurity. That is what is being recommended and what is so dangerous. It is the whole attempt by the House of Lords and by the official Opposition to try to injure and impair this part of our Bill. There is a hankering after the 1971 situation.
The right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) got up and made a few pious remarks about how he wanted the Bill to be the basis of trade union law for the future. He talked as though the Bill was satisfactory to the Opposition in many respects. If we have converted them, we welcome that, but what they propose here is a reversion. They wish to revert to methods which will mean that, instead of industrial relations being dealt with sensibly, they will revert to the system under the 1971 Act. They will in one or two provisions seek to restore the kind of methods they adopted in the 1971 Act.


I am not saying that the clause will mean a complete reversion to 1971 or anything like that. Many of the protections which trade unions require—and many of the protections they require in respect of the abolition of the 1971 Act—are fully protected in our repeal Bill. But the amendment impairs the immunities for trade unions which they have exercised under the 1906 situation quite properly for decades and which in any clear statement of the law they should be entitled to exercise now.
The Opposition should be under no misapprehension about the position. We do not want any tears from them in the way of sympathy for the trade union movement. There was an extraordinary statement by the Leader of the Opposition just after the General Election. He said that if they had won the election they would have kept the 1971 Act. He does not say that now. He reminds me of the line:
The devil was sick, the devil a monk wou'd be".
That was the attitude of the Leader of the Opposition. He is now pretending that he has abandoned the methods of antagonism which led us to such disasters last winter when attempting to force through the clause. This has happened in an unelected place like the House of Lords, particularly when the only claim to survival of that place is as a revising body. But, far from revising the Bill, it has chosen to make more obscure every amendment that it has touched.

Mr. Prior: Perhaps I may remind the right hon. Gentleman that he filibustered on the last Lords reform Bill. The Government then had to withdraw it, but introduced the Industrial Relations Bill, which subsequently they had to withdraw, too.

Mr. Foot: I do not know what relevance that has to this debate. It was partly because of my hostility to the House of Lords that I opposed that Bill. But its conduct on the present legislation justifies everything I said on the previous occasion. I hope it is understood that the Conservative majority in the House of Lords has been manoeuvred and mobilised on this occasion, first to make our repeal Bill obscure and secondly to try to resuscitate parts of the 1971 Act.

Mr. Leon Brittan: Will the Secretary of State, if his anger allows him to contain himself for a moment, explain what the provision in the 1971 Act had to do with the matter?

Mr. Foot: If one operated the clause under the obscure provisions which Donovan described, when one faced a decision on the question whether a union was acting within the law in trying to deal with commercial contracts and sought to bring pressure to bear, one could deal with the situation in a particular way. That is the analogy of the 1971 Act.
Perhaps the Conservatives have already had support for their views in another place, flowing from their tame majority there. They may have thought that having used their privileged position in the House of Lords they could force through their amendments here. It is conceivable that they could do so, but I tell them that the judgment on these matters will not be made by the House of Lords. The judgment on these matters will not even be made by a minority House of Commons of this character. It will be made by the country.
The Opposition wish to press the amendment. They should be more careful. They should remember that it was partly their enthusiasm for the 1971 Act which brought them to their knees. They should remember now that it is their spleen and hatred against the trade union movement which makes them and, in particular, their leader, unfit to govern the country. It was the aftermath of the malice and bitterness of the 1971 Act which led to the situation last winter. It is very unwise for the Conservative Party to invoke its majority in the Lords to assist it, and even more discreditable for the Liberal Party to support it.

Mr. Percival: It is very odd to hear the right hon. Gentleman talking about the bitterness of the Opposition when every word that he uttered was spitting with bitterness.
I spoke after the right hon. Gentleman when we debated this amendment in Committee. I began my speech by saying that some of what he said had been entertaining but the rest was bunkum. On this occasion I omit the first few words. All that he said today was bunkum.
The right hon. Gentleman made one remark with which I agreed. He said that the House should be clear about what it was doing. However, he gave the House a fat lot of help to understand what it was doing. We have heard a load of bunkum about the so-called Lever amendments. I want to spend a few moments looking at the way in which the confusion crept in there.
There were two amendments which were linked. The Government secured a dead heat on the first one through an error about which we now know, and they got their majority on it through the vote of the Chair. Then they proceeded to outvote the Opposition on the second amendment, which would have brought the two clauses, amended by the two amendments, into line with each other. But then, having discovered that they were wrong on the first one, they had not the grace to say that they would carry amendments into the second clause.
The right hon. Gentleman talks about using the Upper House as a reviewing authority. Why did the Government not do that? They could easily have moved amendments in the other place which would have eradicated all the difficulties.

Mr. Foot: The hon. and learned Gentleman will recall that in the discussions about this matter we were asked to move amendments in the House of Lords, but only on the condition that we accepted those amendments when they came back to this House. That was the proposal. The condition was that we deprived this House of the right to decide the matter.

Mr. Percival: The right hon. Gentleman will twist everything to suit himself. What was offered was an agreed solution to the difficulties of which he speaks. What kind of agreed solution is it if it is on the basis that one party can seek to change it later? The right hon. Gentleman does not attract much credit to his argument by putting forward that point.
Two other ways of putting it right were offered to the right hon. Gentleman. He rejected both. He was entitled to do so, of course. But what the Government are not entitled to do is then to blame the Opposition for any difficulties that there might be in interpreting the words.
It is also quite wrong for the right hon. Gentleman to say that we have made a nonsense of the closed shop. That is what has happened, according to Mr. Murray. That is rubbish. If anyone chooses to make an agreement coming within the terms of a union membership agreement, as now defined, he can pray in aid the advantages of Schedule 1. There is nothing to stop unions continuing to make the agreements that they make now.
The right hon. Gentleman says that there is confusion in new Clause 1. I wish he had reminded the House that none of these points was taken in Committee. The right hon. Gentleman knows that parliamentary counsel had a good look at the clause and suggested some corrections necessary to make it free of defects, and that at all stages thereafter it was so regarded.

Mr. Foot: The hon. and learned Gentleman has brought parliamentary counsel into the argument. I am not sure that that is proper. It is not correct to say that parliamentary counsel has agreed with new Clause 1 as it stands. Most of the defects which I cited are those which parliamentary counsel pointed out.

Mr. Percival: The right hon. Gentleman knows what I am talking about. We all know that parliamentary counsel vet every amendment and that technical defects discovered by them are in the forefront of the Government's answers. How often have we heard the argument, "It is a good idea, but it is unacceptable, because there are technical difficulties"? There was none in this case, but certain amendments to new Clause 1 were suggested and accepted.
The right hon. Gentleman then says that all that the Opposition are doing in supporting this amendment from the Lords is supporting a return to a major obscurity. That is very different from his criticism of it over the weekend.
Once again the Secretary of State relied on Donovan. He cannot appreciate how tempting it is for me to quote the passages from Donovan which lead to the opposite conclusion. I ask any hon. Member who might otherwise be led astray by the right hon. Gentleman's references to Donovan to look at the context in which Donovan said that what the right hon. Gentleman quoted.
The right hon. Gentleman conceded that his own Bill was extending the immunities, but, towards the end of his speech, he seemed to argue that it was not extending them but merely restoring to trade unionists the rights that they had taken away from them by the judges. The right hon. Gentleman knows that judges do not invent new laws. They apply the law to the circumstances of the cases which they have to decide. It is the long-standing law of the country, and it will not do for the right hon. Gentleman to wag his head—

Mr. Foot: It is not a question of my wagging my head; it is a question of the view of the Lord Chancellor. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will advise his hon. Friends to read what the Lord Chancellor said in another place. It will be seen that my right hon. and noble Friend confirmed what I say.

Mr. Percival: The Lord Chancellor used those words. However, I invite hon. Members to turn their attention to the speech of my right hon. and noble Friend, Lord Hailsham, which coincides closely with what I say and which I think is the better view, with great respect to all the others concerned.
I turn to the suggestion that their Lordships are robbing someone of something. In the first place, no one is robbed of anything. This amendment puts the position back to where it was before 1971, allowing for the Trade Disputes Act 1965.
It is this House which will decide, and I invite this House to decide now in favour of this very sensible amendment made by their Lordships.

Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 272, Noes 282.

Division No. 106.]
AYES
[6.21 p.m.


Archer, Peter
Davidson, Arthur
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Armstrong, Ernest
Davies, Bryan (Enfield, N.)
Grant, John (Islington, C.)


Ashley, Jack
Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Griffiths, Eddie (Sheffield, Brightside)


Ashton, Joe
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hamilton, William (Fife. C.)


Atkins, Ronald
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Hamling, William


Atkinson, Norman
Deakins, Eric
Hardy, Peter


Bagier, Gordon, A. T.
Dean, Joseph (Leeds, W.)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith


Barnett, Joel (Heywood &amp; Royton)
Delargy, Hugh
Hattersley, Roy


Baxter, William
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Hatton, Frank


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Dempsey, James
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis


Bennett, Andrew F. (Stockport, N.)
Doig, Peter
Heffer, Eric S.


Bidwell, Sydney
Dormand, J. D.
Henderson, Douglas (Ab'rd'nsh're, E)


Bishop, E. S.
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Hooley, Frank


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Duffy, A. E. P.
Horam, John


Boardman, H.
Dunn, James A.
Howell, Denis (B'ham, Small Heath)


Booth, Albert
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth
Huckfield, Leslie


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Edelman, Maurice
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Edge, Geoff
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Edwards, Robert (W'hampton, S. E.)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, North)


Bradley, Tom
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scunthorpe)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Hunter, Adam


Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan)
English, Michael
Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (L'p'l, Edge Hl).


Brown, Ronald (H'kney, S. &amp; Sh'dltch)
Ennals, David
Irving, Rt. Hn. Sydney (Dartford)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Springb'rn
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Jackson, Colin


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (H'gey, Wood Green)
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Janner, Greville


Callaghan, Jim (M'dd'ton &amp; Pr'wch)
Ewing, Mrs. Winifred (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Campbell, Ian
Faulds, Andrew
Jeger, Mrs. Lena


Cant, R. B.
Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Jenkins, Hugh (W'worth, Putney)


Carter, Ray
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (B'ham, St'fd)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)
John, Brynmor


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Flannery, Martin
Johnson, James (K'ston upon Hull, W)


Clemitson, Ivor
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)


Cocks, Michael
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)


Cohen, Stanley
Foot, Rt. Hn. Michael
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)


Coleman, Donald
Ford, Ben
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)


Colquhoun, Mrs. M. N.
Forrester, John
Judd, Frank


Conlan, Bernard
Fowler, Gerry (The Wrekin)
Kaufman, Gerald


Cook, Robert F. (Edinburgh, C.)
Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)
Kelley, Richard


Cox, Thomas
Freeson, Reginald
Kerr, Russell


Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, Maryhill)
Galpern, Sir Myer
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Crawshaw, Richard
Garrett, John (Norwich, S.)
Kinnock, Neil


Cronin, John
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Lamborn, Harry


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
George, Bruce
Lamond, James


Cryer, G. R.
Gilbert, Dr. John
Latham, Arthur (Cityof W'minster P'ton)


Cunningham, G. (Isl'ngt'n, S &amp; F'sb'ry)
Golding, John
Lawson, George (Motherwell &amp; Wishaw)


Dalyell, Tam
Gourlay, Harry
Leadbitter, Ted




Lee, John
Ovenden, John
Strang, Gavin


Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Owen, Dr. David
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Lewis, Arthur (Newham, N.)
Padley, Walter
Summerskill, Rt. Hn. Shirley


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Palmer, Arthur
Swain, Thomas


Lipton, Marcus
Park, George (Coventry, N. E.)
Thomas, D. E. (Merioneth)


Loughlin, Charles
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Loyden, Eddie
Parry, Robert
Thorne, Stan (Preston, S.)


Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Perry, Ernest G.
Tierney, Sydney


Lyons, Edward (Bradford. W.)
Phipps, Dr. Colin
Tinn, James


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg
Tomlinson, John


McCartney, Hugh
Prescott, John
Tomney, Frank


MacCormack, Iain
Price, Christopher (Lewisham, W.)
Torney, Tom


McElhone, Frank
Price, William (Rugby)
Tuck, Raphael


MacFarquhar, Roderick
Radice, Giles
Urwin, T. W.


McGuire, Michael
Reid, George
Varley, Rt. Hn. Eric G.


Maclennan, Robert
Richardson, Miss Jo
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, Ladywood)


McNamara, Kevin
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Madden, M. O. F.
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Magee, Bryan
Roderick, Caerwyn E.
Watkins, David


Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Watt, Hamish


Marks, Kenneth
Rodgers, William (Teesside, St'ckton)
Weitzman, David


Marquand, David
Rooker, J. W.
Wellbeloved, James


Marshall, Dr. Edmund (Goole)
Rose, Paul B.
White, James


Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Whitehead, Phillip


Meacher, Michael
Rowlands, Edward
Whitlock, William


Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Sandelson, Neville
Wigley, Dafydd (Caernarvon)


Mendelson, John
Selby, Harry
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Mikardo, Ian
Shaw, Arnold (Redbridge, Ilford, S.)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Millan, Bruce
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hvrng, Hchurch)


Miller, Dr. M. S. (E. Kilbride)
Short, Rt. Hn. E. (N'ctle-u-Tyne)
Williams, Rt. Hn. Shirley (H'f'd &amp; St'ge)


Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton. Itchen)
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hamp'n, N. E.)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Molloy, William
Slikin, Rt. Hn. John (L'sham, D'ford)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Moonman, Eric
Silverman, Julius
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee, E.)


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Skinner, Dennis
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Small, William
Wilson, William (Coventry, S. E.)


Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Snape, Peter
Wise, Mrs. Audrey


Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Spearing, Nigel
Woodall, Alec


Murray, Ronald King
Spriggs, Leslie
Woof, Robert


Newens, Stanley (Harlow)
Stallard, A. W.
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Oakes, Gordon
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)
Young, David (Bolton, E.)


Ogden, Eric
Stewart, Rt. Hn. M. (H'sth, Fulh'm)



O'Halloran, Michael
Stoddart, David (Swindon)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


O'Malley. Brian
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Mt. James Hamilton and


Orbach, Maurice
Stott, Roger
Mr. Joseph Harper.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Fairgrieve, Russell


Aitken, Jonathan
Channon, Paul
Farr, John


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Fell, Anthony


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Churchill, W. S.
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Clark, A. K. M. (Plymouth, Sutton)
Fidler, Michael


Archer, Jeffrey
Clark, William (Croydon, S.)
Finsberg, Geoffrey


Atkins, Rt. Hn. Humphrey (Speithorne)
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Fisher, Sir Nigel


Awdry, Daniel
Clegg, Walter
Fookes, Miss Janet


Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord
Cockcroft, John
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'field)


Beith, A. J.
Cooke, Robert (Bristol, W.)
Fox, Marcus


Bell, Ronald
Cope, John
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Fareham)
Cormack, Patrick
Freud, Clement


Benyon, W.
Corrle, John
Fry, Peter


Berry, Hon. Anthony
Costain, A. P.
Galbraith, Fin. T. G. D.


Biggs-Davison, John
Craig, Rt. Hn. William (Belfast, E.)
Gardiner, George (Reigate &amp; Banstead)


Blaker, Peter
Critchley, Julian
Gardner, Edward (S. Fylde)


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.)
Crouch, David
Gibson-Watt, Rt. Hn. David


Body, Richard
Crowder, F. P.
Gilmour, Rt. Hn. Ian (Ch'sh' &amp; Amsh'm)


Boscawen, Hon. Robert
Davies, Rt. John (Knutsford)
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)


Boyson, Dr. Rhodes (Brent, N.)
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj. Gen. James
Glyn, Dr. Alan


Bradford, Rev. R.
Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Godber, Rt. Hn. Joseph


Braine, Sir Bernard
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Goodhart, Philip


Bray, Ronald
Dixon, Piers
Goodhew, Victor


Brewis, John
Dodds-Parker, Sir Douglas
Goodlad, A.


Brittan, Leon
Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Gorst, John


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Drayson, Burnaby
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)


Bryan, Sir Paul
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Dunlop, John
Gray, Hamish


Buck, Antony
Durant, Tony
Grieve, Percy


Budgen, Nick
Dykes, Hugh
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)


Balmer, Esmond
Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Grist, Ian


Carlisle, Mark
Elliott, Sir William
Grylls, Michael


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Emery, Peter
Gurden, Harold


Carson, John
Eyre, Reginald
Hall, Sir John







Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Sainsbury, Tim


Hannam, John
Marten, Neil
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Mather, Carol
Scott-Hopkins, James


Hastings, Stephen
Maude, Angus
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Havers, Sir Michael
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Hayhoe, Barney
Mawby, Ray
Shelton, William (L'mb'th, Streath'm)


Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Shersby, Michael


Henderson, J. S. B. (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Mayhew, Christopher (G'wh. W'wch, E)
Silvester, Fred


Heseltine, Michael
Mayhew, Patrick (Royal T'bridge Wells)
Sims, Roger


Higgins, Terence
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Sinclair, Sir George


Hill, James A.
Miller, Hal (B'grove &amp; R'ditch)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Holland, Philip
Miscampbell, Norman
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Hordern, Peter
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Smith, John (W'wick &amp; L'm'ngton)


Howe, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Surry, E.)
Moate, Roger
Spence, John


Howell, David (Guildford)
Molyneaux, James
Spicer, Michael (Worcestershire, S.)


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, North)
Money, Ernle
Sproat, Iain


Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Moore, J. E. M. (Croydon, C.)
Stainton, Keith


Hunt, John
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Stanbrook, Ivor


Hurd, Douglas
Morris, Mitchell (Northampton, S.)
Stanley, John


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Steel, David


Iremonger, T. L.
Morrison, Peter (City of Chester)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Mudd, David
Stodart, R. Hn. A. (Edinburgh, W.)


James, David
Neave, Alrey
Stokes, John


Jenkin, Rt. Hn. P. (R'dge W'std &amp; W'fd)
Neubert, Michael
Stradling Thomas, John


Jessel, Toby
Newton, Tony (Braintree)
Tapsell, Peter


Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Taylor, Edward M. (Glgow, C'cart)


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Normanton, Tom
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)


Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Nott, John
Tebbit, Norman


Jopling, Michael
Onslow, Cranley
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Margaret


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Townsend, C. D.


Kilfedder, James A.
Osborn, John
Trotter, Neville


Kimball, Marcus
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)
Tugendhat, Christopher


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Tyler, Paul


King Tom (Bridgwater)
Paisley, Rev. Ian
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Kirk, Peter
Pardoe, John
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Kitson, Sir Timothy
Parkinson, Cecil (Hertfordshire, S.)
Viggers, Peter


Knight, Mrs. Jill
Pattie, Geoffrey
Waddington, David


Knox, David
Percival, Ian
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Lamont, Norman
Peyton, Rt. He. John
Wakeham, John


Lane, David
Pink, R. Bonner
Welder, David (Clitheroe)


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Latham, Michael (Melton)
Prior, Rt. He. James
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Lawrence, Ivan
Raison, Timothy
Wall, Patrick


Lawson, Nigel (Blaby)
Rathbone, Tim
Warren, Kenneth


Le Marchant, Spencer
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Weatherill, Bernard


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Redmond, Robert
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Lewis, Kenneth (Rtland &amp; Stmford)
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
Wiggin, Jerry


Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; Waterloo)
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Winstanley, Dr. Michael


Loveridge, John
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David (H't'gd'ns're)
Winterton, Nicholas


Luce, Richard
Renton, R. T. (Mid-Sussex)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


MacArthur, Ian
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


McCrindle, R. A.
Ridsdale, Julian
Worsley, Sir Marcus


Macfarlane, Neil
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Young, Sir George (Ealing, Acton)


MacGregor, John
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.-W.)



McLaren, Martin
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Macmillan, Rt. Hn. M. (Farnham)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Mr. A. G. F. Hall-Davies and


McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Mr. Paul Hawkins.


McNair-Wilson Patrick (New Forest)
Rosel, Hugh (Hornsey)



Madel, David
Rost, Peter (Derbyshire, S. E.)

Question accordingly negatived.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 26

MEANING OF TRADE DISPUTE

Lords amendment: No. 11, in page 20, line 12, at end insert:—
so long as the person or persons whose actions in Great Britain are said to be in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute relating to matters occurring outside Great Britain are likely to be affected in respect of one or more of the matters specified in subsection (1) of this section by the outcome of that dispute.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Booth: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The amendment would restrict immunities for those workers striking in support of overseas workers to cases in which British workers were affected by the outcome of the dispute. It would not cover a strike within a multinational company. We are surprised that the Opposition have not met this point. When we debated it in Committee and on Report they made it clear that they believed that a worker in a multinational company in this country should be able to strike


in support of another worker in that company working overseas and should have such protections and immunities for the pursuit or furtherance of a dispute as were open to a dispute in this country. Yet the amendment would restrict the right to those cases in which workers in this country would benefit from the outcome of the dispute—[Interruption.] The amendment would almost wholly destroy the object of Clause 26(3)—[Interruption.] The purpose of international trade union—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. A great deal of conversation is going on. I want to hear the Minister.

Mr. Booth: The purpose of international trade union federations, particularly those organised to cover the multinational company, is to enable workers in one country to act in support of those in another when those acting in support have no direct gain to obtain.
Let us suppose, for example, that a company had one factory in France, one in Canada and another in England. If the workers in France were in dispute with the company and the company sought to place the production in the English or Canadian factory, if workers in either of those factories took action to stop that work being placed, they would not stand to benefit directly but would simply be acting to make the French dispute successful. That is the logic of organising unions to cope with multinational situations. The amendment would rob the English or Canadian workers of the limited protection now left in the Bill for workers in trade disputes. To meet the basic requirement of international unionism the amendment must be rejected.
I should make it clear that the Government's opposition does not rest only on the multinational company. We intend that workers who strike in support of workers abroad should have such protections and immunities as are available under our union legislation. The amendment would reward selfishness, protecting strikes in which people engaged in their own interest but denying protection to strikes designed to aid others.
It has now become clear that the system of larger multinational organisations means that the conditions of unionists are

threatened not only by the movement of sources of production from one country to another but by the use of means of production in one country to make good the deficit of goods from factories in other countries which are in dispute. If unions are to be organised effectively, they must from time to time call on the support of workers in other countries. The amendment would clearly deny to those who respond to such calls the limited protection left in the Bill. That is why we invite the House to disagree with the Lords.

Mr. Christopher Tugendhat: We have made it clear throughout the prolonged discussions on the Bill that we are in favour of international trade unionism and of joint action by workers who have the same employer—in other words, multinational companies. We have also made it clear that we accepted that Oppositions did not always draft their amendments as perfectly as Governments and that if the Minister believed that our amendments did not meet the point but was willing to accept our arguments we would leave it to the Government to introduce amendments of their own.
The Government have steadfastly refused to do so. The reason was made clear by the Minister of State in his customarily frank and open fashion, when he pointed out that what the Government were really concerned with was not strikes against multinational companies or by groups of workers sharing the same employer. He made it clear that he interpreted these matters much more widely.
The Minister took an example—we both agreed that it was a far-fetched example—to show that he wanted the immunities and liberties of the Bill extended to British coal miners if they took strike action against the NCB in support of German coal miners striking against a German organisation. Those bodies would have no common link, and no interest in this country would be involved in the German action. That is a hypothetical case, but it illustrates the direction in which the Government wanted to go.
We support international trade unionism and the proposition that employees of a multinational company in one country should be able to pursue common interests with workers in other


countries. However, we have always opposed the Government's aim to allow unions to strike with any political object in view, whether or not it was connected with what was going on—

Mr. Booth: We have never said that we sought in the Bill to cover political objects of strikes. We made it clear that we wanted the immunities that apply to strikes in furtherance of a trade dispute to cover those acting in furtherance of a dispute abroad but not to those acting in furtherance of a political object abroad.

Mr. Tugendhat: I take the point. It was argued in Committee and elsewhere that matters which in a British context were industrial became political in some countries, and that, in effect, the politics

of other countries would be coming on to the shop floors here. The division between us has always been clear in these debates.

The best thing for the House is to vote on the matter. It will be a vote of the House of Commons, not the House of Lords. It is because the Government do not have the votes in the House of Commons that they have been losing Divisions on the Bill. If they had the votes in the House of Commons they would be all right. It is because they have not got the votes in the House of Commons that they keep losing.

Question put. That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 272, Noes 280.

Division No. 107.)
AYES
[6.41 p.m.


Archer, Peter
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith


Armstrong, Ernest
Deakins, Eric
Hattersley, Roy


Ashley, Jack
Dean, Joseph (Leeds, W.)
Hatton, Frank


Ashton, Joe
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis


Atkins, Ronald
Delargy, Hugh
Heffer, Eric S.


Atkinson, Norman
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Henderson, Douglas (Ab'rd'nsh're, E)


Bagier, Gordon, A. T.
Dempsey, James
Hooley, Frank


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Doig, Peter
Horam, John


Barnett, Joel (Heywood &amp; Royton)
Dormand, J. D.
Howell, Denis (B'ham, Small Heath)


Baxter, William
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Huckfield, Leslie


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Duffy, A. E. P.
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Bennett, Andrew F. (Stockport, N.)
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Bidwell, Sydney
Edelman, Maurice
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, North)


Bishop, E. S.
Edge, Geoff
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Edwards, Robert (W'hampton, S. E.)
Hunter, Adam


Boardman, H.
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scunthorpe)
Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (L'p'l, Edge Hl)


Booth, Albert
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Irving, Rt. Hn. Sydney (Dartford)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
English, Michael
Jackson, Colin


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Ennals, David
Janner, Greville


Boyden, James (Bshop Auckland)
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Bradley, Tom
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Ewing, Mrs. Winifred (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Jenkins, Hugh (W'worth, Putney)


Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan)
Faulds, Andrew
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (B'ham, St'fd)


Brown, Ronald (H'kney, S. &amp; Sh'ditch)
Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
John, Brynmor


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Springb'rn
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Johnson, James (K'ston upon Hull, W)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (H'gey. Wood Green)
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)


Callaghan, Jim (M'dd'ton &amp; Pr'wch)
Fiannery, Martin
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)


Campbell, Ian
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)


Cant, R. B.
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Judd, Frank


Carter, Ray
Foot, Rt. Hn. Michael
Kaufman, Gerald


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Ford, Ben
Kelley, Richard


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Forrester, John
Kerr, Russell


Clemitson, Ivor
Fowler, Gerry (The Wrekin)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Cocks, Michael
Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)
Kinnock, Neil


Cohen, Stanley
Freeson, Reginald
Lamborn, Harry


Coleman, Donald
Galpern, Sir Myer
Lamond, James


Colquhoun, Mrs. M. N.
Garrett, John (Norwich, S.)
Latham, Arthur (Cityof W'minster P'ton)


Conlan, Bernard
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Lawson, George (Motherwell &amp; Wishaw)


Cook, Robert F. (Edinburgh, C.)
George, Bruce
Leadbitter, Ted


Cox, Thomas
Gilbert, Dr. John
Lee, John


Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, Maryhill)
Golding, John
Lever, Rt. He. Harold


Crawshaw, Richard
Gourley, Harry
Lewis, Arthur (Newham, N.)


Cronin, John
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Grant, John (Islington, C.)
Lipton, Marcus


Cryer, G. R.
Griffiths, Eddie (Sheffield, Brightside)
Loughlin, Charles


Cunningham, G. (Isl'ngt'n, S &amp; F'sb'ry)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Loyden, Eddie


Dalyell, Tam
Hamilton, William (Fife, C.)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Davidson, Arthur
Hamling, William
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, W.)


Davies, Bryan (Enfield, N.)
Hardy, Peter
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Harper, Joseph
McCartney, Hugh


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
MacCormack, Iain




McElhone, Frank
Phipps, Dr. Colin
Thomas, D. E. (Merioneth)


MacFarquhar, Roderick
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


McGuire, Michael
Prescott, John
Thorne, Stan (Preston, S.)


Maclennan, Robert
Price, Christopher (Lewisham, W.)
Tierney, Sydney


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Price, William (Rugby)
Tinn, James


McNamara, Kevin
Radice, Giles
Tomlinson, John


Madden, M. O. F.
Reid, George
Tomney, Frank


Magee, Bryan
Richardson, Miss Jo
Torney, Tom


Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Tuck, Raphael


Marks, Kenneth
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Urwin, T. W.


Marquand, David
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Marshall, Dr. Edmund (Goole)
Roderick, Caerwyn E.
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, Ladywood)


Mason, Hn. Roy
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Meacher, Michael
Rodgers, William (Teesside, St'ckton)
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Rooker, J. W.
Watkins, David


Mendelson, John
Rose, Paul B.
Watt, Hamish


Mikardo, Ian
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Weitzman, David


Millan, Bruce
Rowlands, Edward
Wellbeloved, James


Miller, Dr. M. S. (E. Kilbride)
Sandelon, Neville
White, James (Glasgow, Pollak)


Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Selby, Harry
Whitehead, Phillip


Molloy, William
Shaw, Arnold (Redbridge, Ilford, S.)
Whitlock, William


Moonman, Eric
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Wigley, Dafydd (Caernarvon)


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Short, Rt. Hn. E. (N'ctle-u-Tyne)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hamp'n, N. E.)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (L'sham, D'ford)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hvrng, Hchurch)


Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Silverman, Julius
Williams, Rt. Hn. Shirley (H'f'd &amp; St'ge)


Murray, Ronald King
Skinner, Dennis
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Murton, Oscar
Small, William
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Newens, Stanley (Harlow)
Snape, Peter
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee, E.)


Oakes, Gordon
Spearing, Nigel
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Ogden, Eric
Spriggs, Leslie
Wilson, William (Coventry, S. E.)


O'Halloran, Michael
Stallard, A. W.
Wise, Mrs. Audrey


O'Malley, Brian
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)
Woodall, Alec


Orbach, Maurice
Stewart, Rt. Hn. M. (H'sth, Fulh'm)
Woof, Robert


Ovenden, John
Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Owen, Dr. David
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Young, David (Bolton, E.)


Padley, Walter
Stott, Roger



Palmer, Arthur
Strang, Gavin
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Park, George (Coventry, N. E.)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Mr. James. A. Dunn and


Parker, John (Dagenham)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Mr. Walter Johnson.


Parry, Robert
Swain, Thomas



Perry, Ernest G.
Spearing, Nigel





NOES


Adley, Robert
Churchill, W. S.
Fisher, Sir Nigel


Aitken, Jonathan
Clark, A. K. M. (Plymouth, Sutton)
Fookes, Miss Janet


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Clark, William (Croydon, S.)
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'field)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Fox, Marcus


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Clegg, Walter
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)


Archer, Jeffrey
Cockcroft, John
Freud, Clement


Atkins, Rt. Hn. Humphrey (Spelthorne)
Cooke, Robert (Bristol, W.)
Fry, Peter


Awdry, Daniel
Cope, John
Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D.


Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord
Cormack, Patrick
Gardiner, George (Reigate &amp; Banstead)


Beith, A. J.
Carrie, John
Gardner, Edward (S. Fylde)


Bell, Ronald
Coslain, A. P.
Gibson-Watt, Rt. Hn. David


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Fareham)
Craig, Rt. Hn. William (Belfast, E.)
Gilmour, Rt. Hn. Ian (Ch'sh'&amp;Amsh' m)


Benyon, W.
Critchley, Julian
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)


Berry, Hon. Anthony
Crouch, David
Glyn, Dr. Alan


Biggs-Davison, John
Crowder, F. P.
Godber, Rt. Hn. Joseph


Blaker, Peter
Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Goodhart, Philip


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.)
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen James
Goodhew, Victor


Body, Rchard
Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Goodlad, A.


Boscawen, Hon. Robert
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Gorst, John


Boyson, Dr. Rhodes (Brent, N.)
Dixon, Piers
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)


Bradford, Rev. R.
Dodds-Parker, Sir Douglas
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)


Bray, Ronald
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Gray, Hamish


Brewis, John
Drayson, Burnaby
Grieve, Percy


Britten, Leon
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Dunlop, John
Grimond, Rt. Hn.


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Durant, Tony
Grist, Ian


Bryan, Sir Paul
Dykes, Hugh
Grylls, Michael


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Gurden, Harold


Buck, Antony
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Hall, Sir John


Budgen, Nick
Elliott, Sir William
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.


Bulmer, Esmond
Emery, Peter
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Eyre, Reginald
Hannam, John


Carlisle, Mark
Fairgrieve, Russell
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Farr, John
Hastings, Stephen


Carson, John
Fell, Anthony
Havers, Sir Michael


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Hayhoe, Barney


Channon, Paul
Fidler, Michael
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Finsberg, Geoffrey
Henderson, J. S. B. (Dunbartonshire, E.)







Heseltine, Michael
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Higgins, Terence
Mayhew, Christopher (G'wh, W'wch, E)
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Hill, James A.
Mayhew, Patrick (Royal T'bridge Wells)
Shelton, Wiliam (L'mb'th, Streath'm)


Holland, Philip
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Shersby, Michael


Hordern, Peter
Miller, Hal (B'grove &amp; R'ditch)
Silvester, Fred


Howe, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Surrey, E)
Miscampbell, Norman
Sims, Roger


Howell, David (Guildford)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Sinclair, Sir George


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, North)
Moate, Roger
Skeet, T. H. H.


Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Molyneaux, James
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Hunt, John
Money, Ernle
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'm'ngton)


Hurd, Douglas
Moore, J. E. M. (Croydon, C.)
Spence, John


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Spicer, Michael (Worcestershire, S.)


Iremonger, T. L.
Morris, Michael (Northampton, S.)
Sproat, Iain


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Stainton, Keith


James, David
Morrison, Peter (City of Chester)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Jenkin, Rt. Hn. P. (R'dge W'std &amp; W'fd)
Mudd, David
Stanley, John


Jessel, Toby
Neave, Alrey
Steel, David


Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Neubert, Michael
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Newton, Tony (Braintree)
Stodart, Rt. Hn. A. (Edinburgh, W.)


Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Stokes, John


Jopling, Michael
Normanton, Tom
Stradling Thomas, John


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Nott, John
Tapsell, Peter


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Onslow, Cranley
Taylor, Edward M. (Glgow, C'cart)


Kilfedder, James A.
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)


Kimball, Marcus
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Tebbit, Norman


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Margaret


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Kirk, Peter
Paisley, Rev. Ian
Townsend, C. D.


Kitson, Sir Timothy
Pardoe, John
Trotter, Neville


Knight, Mrs. Jill
Parkinson, Cecil (Hertfordshire, S.)
Tugendhat, Christopher


Knox, David
Pattie, Geoffrey
Tyler, Paul


Lamont, Norman
Percival, Ian
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Latham, Michael (Melton)
Pink, R. Bonner
Viggers, Peter


Lawrence, Ivan
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Waddington, David


Lawson, Nigel (Blaby)
Prior, Rt. Hn. James
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Ralson, Timothy
Wakeham, John


Lewis, Kenneth (Rtland &amp; Stmford)
Rathbone, Tim
Welder, David (Clitheroe)


Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; Waterloo)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Loveridge, John
Redmond, Robert
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Luce, Richard
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
Wall, Patrick


MacArthur, Ian
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Warren, Kenneth


McCrindle, R. A.
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David (H't'gd'ns're)
Weatherill, Bernard


Macfarlane, Neil
Renton, R. T. (Mid-Sussex)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


MacGregor, John
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Wiggin, Jerry


McLaren, Martin
Ridsdale, Julian
Winstanley, Dr. Michael


Macmillan, Rt. Hn. M. (Farnham)
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Winterton, Nicholas


McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.-W.)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Madel, David
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Worsley, Sir Marcus


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Young, Sir George (Ealing, Acton)


Marten, Neil
Rosel, Hugh (Hornsey)



Mather, Carol
Rost, Peter (Derbyshire, S.-E.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Maude, Angus
Sainsbury, Tim
Mr. Paul Hawkins and


Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant.


Mawby, Ray
Scott-Hopkins, James

Question accordingly negatived.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

RENT BILL [Lords]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause 1

POWER OF COURT IN ACTION FOR POSSES SION TO REDUCE PERIOD OF NOTICE TO QUIT

(1) After section 80 of the Rent Act 1968 there shall be inserted the following section:—
Power of country court, in action for possession, to reduce period of notice to quit.

80A. In any case where—

(a) a notice to quit a dwelling which is the subject of a Part VI contract has been served, and
(b) the period at the end of which the notice to quit takes effect is for the time being extended by virtue of section 77 or section 78 above, and
(c) at some time during that period the lessor institutes proceedings in the county court for the recovery of possession of the dwelling, and
(d) in those proceedings the county court is satisfied that any of paragraphs (a) to (d) of section 80(2) above applies, the court may direct that the period referred to in paragraph (b) above shall be reduced so as to end at a date specified in the direction."

(2) At the end of subsection (3) of section 106 of that Act (rules as to procedure) there shall be added the words "and section 80A."

(3) After section 95 of the Rent (Scotland) Act 1971 there shall be inserted the following section:—
Power of sheriff, in action for possession to reduce period of notice to quit.

95A. In any case where—

(a) a notice to quit a dwelling-house which is the subject of a Part VII contract has been served, and
(b) the period at the end of which the notice to quit takes effect is for the time being extended by virtue of section 92 or section 93 above, and
(c) at some time during that period the lessor institutes proceedings before the sheriff for possession of the dwelling-house, and
(d)in those proceedings thesheriff is satisfied that any of paragraphs (a) to (d) of section 95(2) above applies, the sheriff may direct that the period referred to in paragraph (b) above shall be reduced so as to end at a date specified in the direction".—[Mr. Freeson.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

6.50 p.m.

The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. Reginald Freeson): I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this we are to discuss new Clause 8—Action for possession during reference under Rent Act—
A reference to a rent officer, a rent assessment committee or a rent tribunal shall not preclude an action for possession of the premises to which the reference relates upon such grounds as the Rent Act permits nor the making by the court of an order for possession subject to the terms (if any) of the decision upon that reference.

Mr. Freeson: The clause, which was tabled by the Opposition in Committee, provides that no reference to a rent officer, rent assessment committee or rent tribunal shall preclude an action for possession on such grounds as the Rent Acts may permit or the court's making an order on such a ground.
It is difficult to understand what the clause might mean. No reference to a rent officer or rent assessment committee can have any effect on an action for possession, because such references are concerned solely with rent and not with security of tenure.
In so far as the clause is concerned with references to a rent tribunal, it would appear that the intention is to allow a lessor under a Part VI contract to apply for an order for possession on any Rent Act grounds, notwithstanding that the operation of the notice to quit had been suspended by a Rent Act tribunal. However, it is not clear what is the force of
subject to the terms, if any
in that context.
We have tabled the Government amendment to deal with some of the questions that were discussed in Committee. The clause incorporates in the Bill a provision enabling lessors under Part VI contracts—predominantly resident landlords after commencement of the Act—to obtain possession in the courts, even though their notice to quit has been suspended under Part VI, where a lessee is failing to pay rent or in some other way to observe his contract, causing nuisance to the landlord or other people in the house, causing the condition of the dwelling to deteriorate, or misusing the


furniture; in other words, behaving in such a way that if he were a protected tenant the landlord would have a ground for possessing under Case 1, 2, 3 or 3A of the main Rent Act 1968.
At present, the landlord under a Part VI contract must, if he needs to get rid of a bad tenant who exercises his right to apply to the rent tribunal, go through two tribunals: first, the rent tribunal—twice, if the tenant, having obtained a suspension of notice to quit, continues misbehaving and the landlord seeks a reduction in the suspension under Section 80—and then at the county court. This may take months, during which the landlord may suffer heavy financial loss and/or distress.
The clause inserts a new section in Part VI of the Rent Act following Section 80. This new provision establishes the powers of the court in any case where application is made for possession by a landlord whose notice to quit has been suspended under Section 77 or 78. It should be noted here that there is nothing at present to prevent a landlord's making such an application, but that if he did so the court, as matters stand, would not be able to grant an order for possession because the letting contract, having been extended by the suspension of the notice to quit, would still be in existence. The new provision would, in effect, alter this by enabling the court to bring the suspension of the notice to quit to an immediate end and thus to terminate the artificially extended contract. Once this has been done the court can, in the course of the same proceedings, make an order for possession.
The new section will therefore provide, in subsection (1) that where, first, a notice to quit has been served; secondly, its operation has been extended by virtue of Section 77 or 78; thirdly, during the period in which the suspended notice is in operation the lessor seeks possession in the court, and, fourthly, the court is satisfied that any of the circumstances specified in Section 80(a) to (d) obtains, the court may direct that the notice shall expire on a date determined by itself. If a court does this it will be able to exercise its existing power to grant an order for possession. The court will be empowered—not required—to terminate the notice to quit and make the order, so that the

judge will not be bound to grant possession if the allegations against the tenant, though true, are of a trivial nature.
Subsection (2) extends Section 106 of the Rent Act, which empowers the Lord Chancellor to make rules for courts in their discharge of the provisions of the Act, to enable him to make rules for the discharge of this new power.
In Committee I undertook to try to meet such a situation, which bears particularly harshly on the small landlord who perhaps owns only one or two properties—a landlord who has lettings in his own owner-occupied premises. When I first gave the undertaking I had doubts whether we would be able to draft an appropriate clause in time for Report, but I am glad to have been able, with the help of my officials, to fulfil the undertaking I gave in Committee.

Mr. Hugh Rossi: New Clause 8 appears on the Notice Paper to preserve in some form the position arrived at in Committee when, after some discussion in the early hours of the morning, the Minister conceded that the Opposition had made out a valid case and that there was a need to amend the law.
The Opposition do not have the advantage of the services of the parliamentary draftsmen. The new clause was tabled merely to preserve the position and so that there was a form of words on the Notice Paper to ensure that the matter would be discussed fully on Report.
I am very grateful to the Minister for the attitude he has taken despite all the difficulties of pressure of work on the lawyers in his Department and on the parliamentary draftsmen who have been able to produce a new clause which meets the case we made in Committee.
Following many representations received, we were concerned about the great feeling of injustice that existed throughout the country when landlords had a had tenant in their accommodation who was not paying rent for a considerable period, or was causing damage to the premises or the furniture, or was acting in a thoroughly anti-social manner and harassing other tenants and, sometimes, the landlord if he happened to live in the same house.
7 p.m.
That was a totally undesirable situation because, inevitably, it meant that magistrates' courts were troubled by cases and complaints of assault and battery when conditions became intolerable. The position was aggravated because it was possible for a tenant to go to a rent tribunal. Automatically he sensed that the landlord was seeking to apply to a county court for a possession order, and by going to the rent tribunal he could obtain security of tenure, in the first instance, of up to six months, which could theoretically be renewed indefinitely for further periods of six months.
That led to a great feeling of injustice, and the Opposition felt it only right that where a genuine grievance existed on the matters I have mentioned the landlord should have a right to go immediately to the county court, and, if the issue between him and the tenant were of nonpayment of rent, anti-social behaviour or damaged property be dealt with there and then without the artificial and unnecessary delays of a rent tribunal procedure.
I am grateful to the Minister for having acceded to this request. Under the clause landlords faced with bad tenants can go straight to the county court and have the judge decide the issue on its merits. If the landlord succeeds in persuading the judge that the tenant is bad he will obtain his possession order without undue delay.
I am grateful that the Minister has indicated in subsection (2) that the Lord Chancellor will be able to make representations about county court procedure, and it is hoped that he will bring forward a means of expediting legal procedure in the county court so that the issue can be tried without a great deal of delay as to procedure and pleadings between the parties. We look forward to seeing what regulations are produced for this expedited procedure, possibly equivalent to Order 14 proceedings in the High Court.
There is one point on which the Minister might help me. It is a minor point but it should be put straight for the record. In subsection (1)(d) there is a reference to paragraphs (a) to (d) of Section 80 of the 1968 Rent Act. Section

80 contains only paragraphs (a) (b) and (c). Para. (d) must have been put in by subsequent legislation—possibly by this Bill. I have been unable to put my finger on the precise reference and I should be grateful if the Minister would explain so that everyone knows exactly where to find paragraph (d) in the future.

Mr. Peter Emery: I congratulate the Minister on the new clause. There are instances where landlords have experienced great difficulty in getting possession of a property from a bad tenant. No landlord would want to get rid of a good tenant, because the whole basis of his operation is to accommodate the best tenants possible. I have had incidents brought to my attention by people living in London in which there was a month's delay in a rent tribunal hearing an application by a bad tenant. The rent tribunal first gave six months' security of tenure to the tenant, the second security of tenure was for another six months and on the third occasions the tribunal gave security of tenure for two months. The tenant finally left about 24 hours before expiry of this last period, owing two months' rent and having turned the flat into a complete shambles.
In accepting the need for the clause the Government have accepted that this sort of thing can happen and that not all tenants are good and not all landlords are bad, or vice versa. There is a certain amount of good and bad in both, and while the Bill is inclined to give most of the benefits to the tenant, the clause goes some way to rectifying the deficiency in the situation concerning the bad tenant so that the facts can be proved more rapidly and possession obtained reasonably quickly.

Sir John Eden: On a number of occasions I have pressed the need for changes of this kind on behalf of my constituents. In Bournemouth there are a mass of what we have come to call small private landlords, and because of that this issue has become a considerable problem. In a way this is partly due to the holiday nature of the town and people have been in the habit of coming into Bournemouth for a comparatively short stay. I am not clear whether the clause meets the case of the short-term winter letting where the tenant


agrees to stay for so long but subsequently decides to protract his stay and remains on into the summer, when the owner could have been committed to letting the property at a much higher rate to someone else.
If the tenant in these circumstances is able to overstay, even by a comparatively short period, the time to which he had originally contracted, it would cause considerable hardship and loss of earnings to the landlord. The incident could affect subsequent lettings even into the following year, because the landlord would have suffered loss of good will through not being able to honour the summer holiday letting.

Mr. Emery: May I suggest that my right hon. Friend does not use the word "landlord" in these circumstances? In my constituency I have experienced much the same problem. These landlords are running businesses for holiday lettings, and in order to assist the housing situation they are willing to go in for winter letting which would not normally be allowed if they could not get vacant possession. These are not landlords in the normal sense. They are running a business, but they are willing to help out during the winter by making their businesses available.

Sir J. Eden: I was using the term "landlord" for shorthand purposes, but my hon. Friend is correct. There are many instances where the owner of this type of premises lets rooms in the summer holiday period and helps out for families with short-term requirements for the winter months. It is regrettable—in some cases for perfectly understandable reasons on the part of the individuals concerned—if subsequently this arrangement is abused. I hope the clause will end that abuse. I was seeking to ask the Minister for information on that point, and if he can confirm my hopes I welcome the clause. It is certainly a long overdue provision which is especially valuable for landlords confronted with the circumstances my hon. Friend has described so that they can turn directly to the county courts. I am sure it is right that this is so and I express my appreciation of the Minister. I express my thanks to my hon. Friends who pressed the case so effectively in Committee.

Mr. Freeson: Paragraph (d) was introduced by Amendment No. 13 in Committee.
The amendment has no relevance to winter lettings, which are covered by Case 10(b) in the main Act. I do not think that it is appropriate or necessary for me to go into detail about that. The point the right hon. Gentleman has just made is covered by Case 10(b) as a ground for possession on application to the county court.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

New Clause 12

RENT ALLOWANCES

"(1) On and after such day as the Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument appoint, so much of Part II of the Housing Finance Act 1972 (rent rebates and rent allowances) as requires that, in order to qualify for an allowance, a person occupying a dwelling under a Part VI letting must be a qualified person, within the meaning of section 19(12) of that Act, shall cease to have effect.

(2) The proviso to subsection (1) of section 25 of the Housing Finance Act 1972 (which, in the case of certain furnished lettings, determines the rent which is eligible to be met by a rebate or an allowance for the purposes of Schedule 3 to that Act) shall cease to have effect on the commencement date.

(3) Notwithstanding anything in subsection (2) above, in the case of a person who immediately before the commencement date was a tenant under a Part VI letting, the provisions of subsection (4) below shall apply if, for an allowance period which was current on or ended immediately before the commencement date, the tenant was entitled to an allowance towards the rent payable under the Part VI letting and, in calculating that allowance for the last week of that period which ended before the commencement date, the rent which, for the purposes of Schedule 3 to the Housing Finance Act 1972, was eligible to be met by a rebate or an allowance was that determined under paragraph (a) of the proviso to section 25(1) of that Act (the occupational element of the rent or of the residue of the rent plus 25 per cent.).

(4) If, by virtue of subsection (3) above, this subsection applies in relation to a tenant, then, subject to subsection (5) below, on and after the commencement date, if and so long as—

(a) the tenant continues to occupy as his home the dwelling to which, immediately before that date, the Part VI letting referred to in subsection (3) above applied, and
(b) the tenant continues to be entitled to an allowance towards the rent payable by him for that dwelling, and


(c) that rent continues to include payment for the use of furniture,

the rent which, for the purposes of Schedule 3 to the Housing Finance Act 1972, is eligible to be met by a rebate or an allowance shall, in his case, be the amount of the rent which was so eligible for the week mentioned in subsection (3) above (in this section referred to as "the former eligible rent").

(5) If, for any week of an allowance period when, apart from this subsection, subsection (4) above would apply in relation to a tenant, that subsection shall cease to apply if—

(a) the amount determined under section 25(1) of the Housing Finance Act 1972 as the rent which is eligible to be met by a rebate or an allowance exceeds the former eligible rent, or
(b) the rent recoverable from the tenant, exclusive of any part thereof attributable to rates, is less than the former eligible rent, or
(c) part of the dwelling is sub-let and the former eligible rent either did not take account of the occupational element of any rent payable by a sub-tenant or took account of such an element which is less than the occupational element of the rent payable for that week by the sub-tenant,

and, accordingly, from the beginning of that week the rent which is eligible to be met by a rebate or an allowance shall be that determined as mentioned in paragraph (a) above.

(6) In subsection (1) of section 25 of the Housing Finance Act 1972 after the words "of the rent" there shall be inserted, in substitution for the words there inserted by paragraph 17 of Schedule 1 to the Furnished Lettings (Rent Allowances) Act 1973, the words "(or if, in the case of an allowance, any amount falls to be deducted by virtue of paragraph 14 of Schedule 4 to this Act, the occupational element of the residue of the rent remaining after deducting those amounts)".

(7) Subsections (2) and (3) of the said section 25 shall be amended as follows:
(a) at the end of subsection (2) there shall be added the words "and
(c) less, in the case of an allowance, any amount which, in the case of the tenant concerned, is prescribed as a deduction by virtue of paragraph (c) of subsection (3) below"; and
(b) at the end of subsection (3) there shall be added the words "and
(c) prescribe deductions from rent for the purposes of subsection (2)(c) above in the case of tenants of such descriptions as may be specified in the regulations who are for the time being in receipt of awards or grants under any provision of sections 1 to 3 of the Education Act 1962 or any other award or grant which is paid out of money provided by Parliament and is determined by the Secretary of State to be an analogous award or grant, and different provision may be made by virtue of paragraph (c) above in relation to different periods and different classes of awards or grants".

(8) In subsection (1) of section 26 of the Housing Finance Act 1972 (interpretation of Part II) in the definition of "tenant" after paragraph (c) there shall be inserted the following paragraph:
(d) a person who is treated as a private tenant under a Part VI letting by virtue of subsection (8A) of section 19 of this Act".

(9) The said section 26 shall apply in relation to subsections (1) to (5) above as if those subsections were included in Part II of the Housing Finance Act 1972 and, without prejudice to the application of that section, the reference in subsection (3) above to a tenant under a Part VI letting includes a reference to a person who is treated as if he were a private tenant under a Part VI letting by virtue of section 19(8A) of that Act and any reference in that subsection or subsection (4) above to a Part VI letting means, in relation to a person who is so treated, the letting referred to in the said section 19(8A)".—[Mr. Freeson.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Freeson: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With the new clause we are to discuss Government new Clause 14—Rent allowances in Scotland—and Government Amendments Nos. 35, 36, 40, 53, 37, 38, 39 and 41.

Mr. Freeson: New Clause 14 is the Scottish equivalent to new Clause 12, and it will be covered by what I say about that clause. All the other amendments, with the exception of Amendment No. 53, are consequential.
The main purpose of the new clause is to bring the present provisions relating to eligibility for a rent allowance in respect of furnished tenants into line with those for unfurnished tenants, as we are in effect, from this Bill onwards, treating furnished tenants, as being in the same position in law as unfurnished tenants.
Under present legislation the rent allowance scheme has different criteria of eligibility according to whether the applicant for a rent allowance is a protected or statutory tenant under the Rent Act—broadly, a tenant of unfurnished accommodation—or whether he is a Part VI contract holder under the same Act—broadly, a tenant of a furnished letting. The main difference lies in the requirement under the Furnished Lettings (Rent Allowances) Act 1973 that the "furnished" tenant not only has to be a Part VI contract holder, but also has to be a "qualified person".
A "qualified person" is either a person falling within a category specified by the


Secretary of State by regulations or else a person whom a local authority considers would suffer hardship if he were not granted an allowance. Under the previous Administration, the categories of qualifying persons were prescribed as those Part VI contract holders who were pensioners, or had a pensioner living in the household, handicapped persons, those with a dependent child, or persons aged 30 or over. There are also residential qualifications for some of these categories varying from three to six months. The result is that most Part VI contract holders below 30 years are not qualified persons, and so are ineligible for a rent allowance.
7.15 p.m.
However, the Bill creates a new borderline between tenancies receiving full Rent Act protection and Part VI contract holders, based mainly on whether there is an absentee or resident landlord. Most existing Part VI contract holders600,000—odd out of over 700,000—nationally will become protected tenants. As a result they will become eligible for rent allowances under the existing provisions for such tenants since the "qualified person" criterion will no longer apply to them. But, unless some change is made, the remaining Part VI contract holders will still have to be qualified persons before they are eligible for rent allowances.
The Government consider that it is no longer right or defensible to preserve this difference in eligibility for rent allowances. The distinction between accommodation with a resident landlord and accommodation with an absentee landlord is necessary for the purposes of security of tenure but inappropriate for the purposes of rent allowances. If no change were made it would be possible for similar tenants of comparable accommodation to have different eligibilities for rent allowances.
Accordingly, this clause will abolish the "qualified person" requirement for Part VI contract holders—furnished tenants—and assimilate eligibility for rent allowances for all private tenants. Thus it is a measure both lifting certain restrictions and simplifying the rent allowance scheme.
Another difference between the arrangements for rent allowances for furnished and unfurnished tenants is that in certain circumstances in the case of a furnished letting the rent which is eligible to be met by an allowance may be increased by a quarter compared with the eligible rent in the case of an unfurnished letting. This 25 per cent. markup was introduced to take account of the increased management costs for furnished accommodation compared to those of unfurnished accommodation. The transfer of most Part VI lettings to regulated tenancies will mean that the tenants concerned will no longer be eligible for this mark-up. Moreover, to retain it for the remaining Part VI contract holders would result in different allowances for comparable dwellings solely because of the residence of the landlord. So this difference, too, is removed by the clause, with a saving for those already receiving it.
One of the consequences of the removal of the "qualified person" requirement will be that for the first time most students under the age of 30 who are also tenants will be eligible for rent allowances. The Government consider that it would not be justifiable to make rent allowances available on the normal basis to students also in receipt of assistance from public funds, their grant sources, towards their rent. The clause therefore provides for the Secretary of State to prescribe deductions to be made to the rent eligible to be met by an allowance in the case of students in receipt of awards or grants from public funds which cover a rent allowance within the total grant allowed.
The clause is required as a consequence of the fundamental changes in the Rent Act structure on which the legislation on rent allowances was based. We have had, as it were, to rethink the rent allowance scheme as a consequence of the Bill and that is why, regrettably, these proposals have been laid before the House at this late stage in its passage.

Mrs. Margaret Thatcher: I thank the Minister for his explanation. Having read the clause, I do not fully understand it. It is very lengthy. I think that in general it says that tenants of


furnished accommodation are just as eligible for rent allowances as tenants of unfurnished accommodation have been. Under our legislation, most tenants of furnished accommodation were eligible, except those under 30 who had no people dependent upon them. Has the Minister made an estimate of the cost of the extension of rent allowances in this way?
Secondly, I want to ask the hon. Gentleman a little more about the position of students. I understand from subsection (7) that the Minister will make regulations designed to prevent the overlap of financial assistance. But the position of students is not exactly simple in relation to financial assistance. Perhaps only a minority of students receive the full grant. The rest receive a reduced grant which should be supplemented by parental contribution.
Two factors arise here. First, even if one receives the full grant, it is not specifically apportioned as between rent, books, food and so on. There is only a notional apportionment, so we cannot identify the proportion of the full grant which is available for rent. That will make a difficulty when we calculate on the basis of overlapping financial provisions.
Secondly, what happens to the student who is entitled by virtue of the regulations to a substantial parental contribution? Supposing he receives only £150 in grant and that the rest is due to be paid by parental contribution? Let us suppose that that contribution is not forthcoming. Despite all the circumstances, are we to deem it as forthcoming?
Another point is the actual rent for furnished accommodation that a student will pay. That will depend upon how many people share the accommodation. As the Minister knows, many students prefer to rent houses and flats on their own. They sometimes get five or six other students in a house to share the accommodation. Supposing that they reduce the number from, for example, five persons to three persons. Each of them will thereby pay more rent. What account will be taken of that in the regulations? I mention that only because I have occasion to know the complexities attaching to students' grants,

particularly when the student relies upon a parental contribution.
If we are to have the regulations it would be helpful if the Minister could indicate in a little more detail what they are likely to contain. If they are not clear, there is bound to be trouble in the student world.

Mr. Rossi: I understand that the Minister is waiting for some information on the matters that have been put to him by my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher). In the meantime, I ask him about a matter arising out of his previous explanation that I did not quite follow.
The Minister made reference to a 25 per cent. mark-up. I think that those were the words that he used. I took that to mean that the tenants of furnished accommodation received an allowance 25 per cent. higher than tenants of unfurnished accommodation. Presumably that is because furnished accommodation is more expensive than unfurnished accommodation.
Are we to understand from the fact that the mark-up of 25 per cent. will be obviated—that is what I understood the Minister to say in terms—that in future he anticipates rent officers fixing rents for furnished accommodation at about the same level as rents for unfurnished accommodation other than the part of the rent relating to furniture? I cannot see any other reason for wanting to deprive tenants of furnished accommodation of the 25 per cent. mark-up. I may have misunderstood the Minister, and perhaps when he replies to my right hon. Friend he will be able to deal with the matter that I have raised.

Mr. Freeson: I think that I can satisfy the right hon. Lady. Initially it is proposed to prescribe a deduction of £4 a week, which broadly reflects the notional element for rent. The right hon. Lady rightly used the word "notional". With the right hon. Lady's background, this is a matter on which she probably has expert knowledge. The deduction of £4 a week, as I have said, broadly reflects the notional element for rent in the new rates of awards from September 1974.
It is important for me to stress that the deduction will be based on a notional


element since the Department of Education and Science, does not break down student grants into specific elements. That is why there is the reference to notional sums.
I now turn to the position of those students—there are many of them—who receive a parental contribution. The point is covered because the deduction is based upon a notional figure which can be variable under the regulations. That is how we intend to start. It will be based upon the total grant—namely, the State contribution and the parental grant. If that were not so it would have a regressive effect, as the right hon. Lady will be quick to appreciate. I think that that covers the main point.
I do not have an estimate for this provision but we believe that the total take-up of these grants will be absorbed into the total vote-head on allowances. Both under the last administration and under this administration the estimates which have been undertaken indicate that it has not been the experience that the rent allowances take-up has reached the ceilings that have been provided. I make no implied criticism of that. That is an understandable position. Any Government must make provision for the allowance that could be available but in practice is not taken up. I am certain from information that is available to me that the relatively small additional sum involved will be absorbed into the general vote-head.
The hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) referred to the mark-up. Before I come to that I should put it on record that we shall be embarking upon a further spate of publicity on rent allowance take-up, in the course of which we can pick up this point. We can seek to ensure that many more of those who are entitled to such allowances, whether under the clause or under the general provisions of the rent allowances, will take up the cash awards. They are the awards that are available, although only a small minority throughout the country has so far taken them up. We shall endeavour to improve on that my undertaking a publicity campaign.
Subsection (2) provides for the abolition of the provision under which the eligible

rent may reflect the 25 per cent. mark-up Rent allowances and rebates are based on the occupational element of the rent. That is the rent net of any sums attributable to rates, services or furiture. Where no rent has been registered for a dwelling a local authority is required, under the present scheme, to arrive at the eligible rent by estimating what it thinks to be the fair rent by reference to information available from the local rent officer, but not by reference of the case to the rent officer. In the case of furnished dwellings, the estimated fair rent could be increased by a quarter provided that does not exceed the rent actually paid. To assimilate the arrangements for furnished and unfurnished accommodation, the 25 per cent. mark-up is being abolished for the reasons already explained. This change will come into force immediately on the commencement of the Act. Therefore, no new allowances for Part VI contract holders can be calculated on the basis of the 25 per cent. mark-up.
The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that once we move furnished accommodation into rent officer calculations we are moving away from the position in which local authorities have had to make their own estimates into a situation in which a totally fair rent is to be calculated, assessed, recommended and fixed by rent officers subject to appeal procedures.
It is also necessary to take into account as a background fact the point that the hon. Gentleman frequently raised during the course of our proceedings. That position is implicit in the Docherty case. The hon. Gentleman will understand the point about the relatively residual element of value that can be attributed in most rents. We are now moving into a situation where the process will be by way of application and it will be difficult to operate a simple and direct scheme.
For the reasons that I have described we are proceeding with these provisions.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

New Clause 13

ADVANCE APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION OF A NEW RENT

'(1) At the beginning of subsection (3) of section 44 of the Rent Act 1968 (no application for registration of a new rent until three years after a previous registration) there shall be inserted the words "Subject to subsection (3A) below" and at the end of that subsection there shall be added the following subsection:—
(3A) Notwithstanding anything in subsection (3) above, an application such as is mentioned in that subsection which is made by the landlord alone and is so made within the last three months of the period of three years referred to in that subsection may be entertained notwithstanding that that period has not expired.

(2) At the beginning of subsection (1) of section 48 of that Act (effect of registration of rent) there shall be inserted the words "Subject to subsection (1A) below" and at the end of that subsection there shall be added the following subsection:—
(1A) Where, by virtue of subsection (3A) of section 44 above, an application is made before the expiry of the period of three years referred to in subsection (3) of that section, subsection (1) above shall have effect as if for the reference to the date of the application there were substituted a reference to the first day after the expiry of that period of three years.

(3) At the beginning of subsection (3) of section 40 of the Rent (Scotland) Act 1971 (no application for registration of a new rent until three years after a previous registration) there shall be inserted the words "Subject to subsection (3A) below" and at end of that subsection there shall be added the following subsection:—
(3A) An application such as is mentioned in subsection (3) above which is made by the landlord alone and is so made within the last three months of the period of three years referred to in that subsection may be entertained before the expiry of that period, notwithstanding that the application is not made upon any of the grounds mentioned in that subsection.

(4) At the beginning of subsection (1) of section 44 of the said Act of 1971 (effect of registration of rent) there shall be inserted the words "subject to subsection (1A) below" and at the end of that subsection there shall be added the following subsection:—
(1A) Where, by virtue of subsection (3A) of section 40 above, an application is made before the expiry of the period of three years referred to in subsection (3) of that section, subsection (1) above shall have effect as if for the reference to the date of the application there were substituted a reference to the first day after the expiry of that period of three years"'.—[Mr. Kaufman.]

Brought up and read the First time.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Gerald Kaufman): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new Clause implements the principles of new Clause 4 which was moved by the Opposition and which we undertook to examine. Thereby the Francis Committee's recommendation was that landlords should be enabled to apply for review of registered fair rents three months before the expiry of the three-year review period, so that if the resulting re-registration is higher than the previous rent they may be entitled to an increase.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. James Allason: I declare an interest as a landlord and property manager. I had the honour of moving in Committee the amendment which has given rise to the new Clause.
The new Clause will be of some help to landlords who are hard pressed at present. It means that they will be able to apply for a new rent to be assessed three months before the rent becomes effective. This should avoid delaying references to the rent assessment committee and will be of some benefit to landlords in a Bill which does so much to harm the position of the small landlord.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

New Clause 14

RENT ALLOWANCES IN SCOTLAND

'(1) On and after such day as the Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument appoint, so much of section 16 of the Act of 1972 (rent allowances) as requires that, for certain persons to be or to be treated as private tenants, they must be qualified persons within the meaning of subsection (8) of that section, shall cease to have effect.

(2) In paragraph 15(1)(g)(ii) of Schedule 3 to the Act of 1972 (which provides that in ascertaining the amount of an allowance in respect of a furnished letting a certain amount of rent payable is to be disregarded), the words "125 per cent. Of" shall cease to have effect on the commencement date.

(3) Notwithstanding anything in subsection (2) above, in the case of a person who immediately before the commencement date was a tenant of a dwelling-house under a furnished letting, the provisions of subsection (4) below


shall apply if, for an allowance period which was current on or ended immediately before that date, the tenant was entitled to an allowance towards the rent payable under the furnished letting which was calculated, for the last week of that period which ended before that date, by reference to an amount of rent which, after making the deduction (if any) required by head (i) of paragraph 15(1)(g) of Schedule 3 to the Act of 1972, was more than the estimated fair rent referred to in head (ii) of that paragraph but not more than 125 per cent. of that estimated fair rent.

(4) If, by virtue of subsection (3) above, this subsection applies in relation to a tenant, then, if and so long as he continues on and after the commencement date to be—

(a) a tenant of the same dwelling-house under the same letting (whether or not it continues to be a furnished letting), and
(b) entitled to an allowance towards the rent under the letting concerned,

the allowance shall be calculated by reference to the amount of rent referred to in subsection (3) above until—

(i) the rent recoverable from the tenant for any week of an allowance period is less than the amount referred to in that subsection, or
(ii) the amount of rent by reference to which, but for this subsection, the allowance for any such week would be calculated is higher than the amount referred to in subsection (3) above,

whichever is the earlier; and as from the beginning of that week the allowance shall be calculated by reference to the amount of rent to which an authority would be entitled to have regard but for this subsection.

(5) Paragraph 17 of Schedule 2 to the Act of 1972 shall be amended as follows:
(a) in sub-paragraph (1) for the words "sub-paragraph (2) below" there shall be substituted the words "the following provisions of this paragraph";
(b) at the end there shall be added the following sub-paragraphs—
(3) It shall be the duty of every authority, for the purpose of computing the amount of an allowance towards the rent payable by tenants of such classes as may be prescribed who are for the time being in receipt of—

(a) an award or grant, being a bursary, scholarship or allowance granted under section 49(1) or 75(f) of the Education (Scotland) Act 1962, or
(b) any other award or grant which is paid out of money provided by Parliament and is determined by the Secretary of State to be analogous to any such bursary, scholarship or allowance, to treat the rent as reduced by such amount as may be prescribed.

(4) In sub-paragraph (3) above 'prescribed' means prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

(5) Regulations under this paragraph may make different provision in relation to different periods and different classes of awards or grants.

(6) In this section "the Act of 1972" means the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1972; and section 22 of the Act of 1972 (interpretation of Part II of that Act) shall apply in relation to this section as if it were included in that part'.—[Mr. Freeson.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 3

AGREEMENTS AUTHORISED BY COURT NOT TO GIVE RISE TO PROTECTED TENANCIES

'The Court may—

(a) on the joint application of the persons who propose to be the landlord and the tenant of a dwelling-house in relation to a tenancy proposed to be granted for a term of years certain which would except for this section be a protected tenancy for the purposes of the Rent Act, authorise an agreement preventing the tenancy from being such a protected tenancy; and
(b) on the joint application of the persons who are the landlord and the tenant of a dwellinghouse in relation to a tenancy which is a protected tenancy for the purposes of the Rent Act, authorise an agreement for the surrender of the tenancy and of the protection afforded to it by the Rent Act on such date or in such circumstances as may be specified in the agreement and on such terms (if any) as may be so specified'.—[Mr. Graham Page.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
In Committee a fundamental issue emerged between the two sides. We believed that to place restrictions on the letting of property did reduce the availability of that class of property for letting. The Minister said that that was not proven, despite the figures, which relate particularly to the difference between availability of furnished and unfurnished lettings.
Our efforts were directed to the proposition that if restrictions are necessary, as we admit in some cases they are, they should be designed so as not to force landlords to abandon the business of landlordism. In new Clause 3, we have taken a leaf out of the Law of Property Act 1969 where, as between the prospective landlord of business premises and the


prospective tenant of those premises, there is provision that they can go before the court and opt out of the restrictions so far as they relate to business premises, and upon the approval of the court to an agreement to contract out in that way.
One must realise that it is wrong to assume that every tenant who is going to take a dwelling house on tenancy is acting under duress and should be allowed to escape from his contractual obligations because of the assumption that he took them on under some form of duress obliging him to do so. Normally, tenants are sophisticated people who know well enough whether they want to take advantage of the security of the Rent Act, or whether they are prepared to take on a property for a fixed period of years and vacate it at the end of that period.
Even if one assumes that some of them are acting not under duress necessarily, in the legal definition, but under pressure, complete powers against that would be resort to the court. So, in new Clause 3, by copying the provision in the Law of Property Act 1969 as it relates to business premises, I wish to provide that if the two parties, in a joint application to the court, say, "Here is a willing landlord letting a dwelling house for a period, and a willing tenant to take it for that period," the court can itself approve the agreement and remove it from the restrictions of the Rent Act.
The second part of a new Clause would give similar freedom to the parties, on a joint application to the court, to surrender a tenancy which otherwise has the protection of the Rent Act. This provision, I am informed, has worked very satisfactorily in the case of business premises.
Originally, where business premises were protected in somewhat the same way as dwelling houses under the Rent Act, there was no possibility of opting out of the Act. If the tenancy included a provision that the protection of business tenancies should not apply, that was invalid. In 1969, the situation was altered. Since then, the courts have found no difficulty in deciding whether, when the two parties come before them, it is a case in which there would be no hardship on the tenant to remove that agreement between the parties from the restrictions applying to business premises.
I asked in the new clause that the same sort of principle should apply as between consenting parties to a tenancy of a dwelling house. I am sure that this draws much closer together the two sides of what I describe as the fundamental issue between us. We recognise here in the clause that the protection of certain classes of tenant is very necessary. We say that it is not needed for every tenant. At the same time, we give a freedom to the landlord to seek the approval of the court, with the consent of the prospective tenant, for removal of the restrictions. I am convinced that by this means we shall make available more property for letting, and that will benefit the tenants in the end more than placing an absolute irremovable restriction on these agreements.

Sir Marcus Worsley: I support my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page). I declare an interest as an owner of some rented property. The case I want to adduce in his support is the situation in my constituency to which a lot of people come who, for one reason or another, need to come to London to do a job for a short time—say, two or three years—and then move away. As a result of the Bill, such people will find accommodation in London profoundly difficult to find.
They will not be able to get local authority accommodation. Sometimes I have been led to think that they will have to move from one holiday letting to another. These may be people who have perfectly adequate incomes and are doing an important job. Why on earth should they not be able to go to a landlord, come to an agreement with him mutually convenient to both sides, go to the court and have it registered? The case for doing this is very important.
When my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) put similar proposals in Committee, the Under-Secretary of State said that this was all going to be done by the local authorities. He said that he wanted to see the whole of the private rented sector disappear and all this provision made by local authorities.
The sort of people I am talking about will never be cared for by the local authorities. I suspect that the effect of this Bill, like so much done by the present Government, will be once more to make


conditions more difficult for the middle class. It is for the middle class, who can afford a good rent and whom a landlord would like as tenants, that this sort of exception would be very useful indeed.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: I shall be brief, even though the new clause is tremendously important. The Bill may be a charter for the furnished tenant, but it is also a charter for homelessness among many other tenants. The purpose of the Bill can be stated in a sentence—it is to protect the furnished tenant in the stress areas because the furnished tenancy is his home. There should not be included provisions for furnished accommodation for the transient population who have an equally dire need for accommodation. My hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Sir M. Worsley) has several thousands of people in his constituency who need transient accommodation. They comprise newlyweds, typists, overseas visitors and businessmen who have to stay for a period in London or many other major cities.
Such people require genuine furnished accommodation, often of the executive type, but it is unnecessary to provide protection for them if they do not seek it in the first place. An advantage of the new clause—which is new from anything we discussed over many protracted hours upstairs—is that it provides that if a landlord and tenant of the type of accommodation I have envisaged agree together that they do not want to be protected by the Rent Act they should be allowed to file an application in a court agreeing that for the period of the tenancy, which should be a fixed term, they will opt out of the general provisions of the Bill.
This type of clause does not imperil the purposes which the Labour Government have in mind in protecting the furnished tenant in the stress areas, but at the same time it excludes, by consent, persons who do not want to come under the terms of that protection. I hope that the Government will show good will and agree to such an exclusion. We have tried other methods in the past, but what is now proposed is an admirable way of achieving the objective of retaining executive accommodation in the main cities. Such accommodation is badly needed.

The need in the Metropolis and other major cities is as desperate as for other types of accommodation.
A provision of the sort proposed will act as a brake and ensure that there is a pool of accommodation, outside the type which Shelter and other organisations have been talking about, in respect of which there will be security of tenure for the type of tenant who makes a permanent home of his tenancy.

Mr. Timothy Sainsbury: I declare an interest as a tenant of rented accommodation and as a director of companies which own property for residential purposes incidental to their main operation. I am also an associate of the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors. I support the new clause. It could, in a small though relatively worthwhile way, help to make available accommodation which might not otherwise be available to tenants. I particularly support paragraph (a) because it cannot affect any existing tenant, and for a future tenant it provides the security of being able to go before a court so that the matter can be inquired into before it is decided not to grant protection to the tenancy concerned.
7.45 p.m.
The clause could encourage the availability of two types of property which would not otherwise be available, namely, those which, were they agricultural tenancies would come under Schedule 2, Part III, Case 12, but might be tenancies of property required for business purposes at a future date, of which the owner wishes to retain availability in case he should require it for a tenant in connection with his business. He would not be prepared to let unless he could be assured that he could get possession when required.
The second type of property which was discussed at some length in Committee and which is referred to in a number of other amendments is that which is subject to possible redevelopment and might be held empty pending the determination of an outstanding planning application or an appeal—which may take a long time—and again not be available to residential tenants unless the owners could be certain of obtaining repossession.
Under the proposals prospective tenants, like prospective landlords, would have


the benefit of being able to appear before a court and the court would be able to inquire into the matter to ensure that it was genuine. I hope hat the new clause will commend itself to the Government.

Mr. Tyler: At first sight this is an attractive new clause, but the protection is superficial when it is put in the context of the considerable housing stresses and strains existing at present. I have some sympathy with the aim of the clause, but I am concerned about the timing in bringing it forward now. It is unfortunate that the main Opposition did not introduce it in Committee, because we could then have had a useful extended debate on its principle—

Mr. Rossi: I thought that one of the criticisms made of us in Committee was that we had too many extended debates. We have reserved some matters for this stage because it was not possible to carry on with them in Committee.

Mr. Tyler: That demonstrates the fact that giving way to interventions is not always helpful. The clause represents a major departure, unlike many of the amendments considered at considerable length upstairs. It is important that we discuss it this evening, and to that extent I am glad that it is now being brought forward.
We are considering the Bill in an imperfect world. If it were a perfect world, detailed rent legislation would not be necessary for landlords and tenants. It would be totally unnecessary to introduce this sort of legislation.
However, I can imagine circumstances in my constituency, just as much as in major urban constituencies involving the sort of pressures that could be put on a tenant if such a provision was in the Bill. The right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) referred to duress, but it would probably be persuasion that would be involved. I can imagine how persuasive that persuasion could be. A landlord could tell a prospective tenant, "We do not want to go through all the procedure of rent appeals. Let us get together and see if we can come to an amicable arrangement and save ourselves a lot of bother as well as legal fees". The landlord might even suggest that he would not ask for quite so much rent if he and the tenant decided to make a joint

application to the court with a view to avoiding the restrictions of the Rent Act. That would be an extremely attractive prospect for tenants in areas of considerable housing shortage.
My doubt is that by making such provision we shall be giving an opportunity for the landlord—perhaps an unscrupulous landlord, or a lazy landlord, or merely a landlord with an eye to the main chance—to put the prospective tenant in an invidious position. Persuasive powers, along with the lack of accommodation in a particular area, and ever-rising costs, could provide a way out of rent legislation which we in the House feel is genuinely necessary.
The right hon. Member for Crosby who introduced the clause referred to the precedent of business rents. I acknowledge that it is a perfectly good precedent to use in debating terms. It is as well that we should pause and contrast the different circumstances. The business tenant is not, as a rule, put in the extraordinarily invidious position of the prospective tenant in an area of considerable housing need. It is for that reason that the law, in 1969, was able to grant that sort of provision to the business tenant.
At the same time, if the pressures are different, certainly the parties are different. We can imagine the circumstance when a tenant who might not know the law—and, goodness knows, this sort of law is not easy to understand—and who might not be aware of the full significance of going to the court with a joint application, would do so and sign away his rights. This clause is attractive, but the attraction is superficial. I suspect that the Minister will feel the same.

Mr. Nicholas Ridley: I rise to make a brief "maiden" speech about this Bill. I was not a member of the Committee, and I was not in the country at the time of Second Reading.
I urge this clause upon the House. I heard what the hon. Gentleman for Bodmin (Mr. Tyler) said. He stressed the shortage of accommodation. He must be aware that this Bill will drastically reduce the amount of rented accommodation, and anything that can be done to ameliorate the debilitating effects of this Bill in relation to the provision of further furnished accommodation needs the support of this House.
It is regrettable that the Bill is before us at all. It is a Bill which will drastically increase homelessness in this country. Since the Minister is well known for his humanitarian and progressive views, I would have thought that he would have felt it would be right to allow at least one small sector of the housing market to operate by agreement. Without agreement there will be no more rented accommodation. If landlords are to let under duress, which is the consequence of this Bill, landlords will find any means they can to cease letting and come out of the market.
As the Minister knows perfectly well, the housing authorities can never possibly cope with the consequences. It is a very good clause and it will enable the landlord and tenant who are able to do business together to enter into a contract with obviously beneficial effects on confidence.
It is confidence which is sorely lacking as a result of the Government's activities. At a time of accelerating inflation, the temptation in the minds of small men to do damage to those who provide, to mitigate the apparent effects of inflation by confiscating their emoluments is extremely damaging to the supply. If we have shortages in the future, major shortages, particularly of housing, it is perhaps the most cruel possible consequence of inflation. We must try to get above the sentiments whereby we think it is necessary on all occasions to "do in" all those who provide.
One of the historical and inevitable consequences of hyper-inflation is that provision ceases and the shortages which develop cause severe hardship to those seeking accommodation.

Mr. Robin F. Cook: I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument. I was wondering whether to help me follow it wholly, he can explain how he reconciles with this thesis the fact that after the 1957 Act, which removed security of tenure, there was a sharp reduction in the number of properties available for letting?

Mr. Ridley: I must confess that the Labour Party has always been with us. So long as it insists on remaining with us and talking nonsense we are liable to get a debilitating effect on the housing market.

I do not know whether I should wander in response to the hon. Gentleman's intervention, but he will know that rent restriction has been with us since the first world war. My father carried out a report into the debilitating effects of rent restriction in about the year the hon. Member mentioned, 1955 I think it was. In that report he rightly recommended the total abolition of rent restriction—advice which has not yet been heeded. One of the things I am pleading for, and apparently the hon. Gentleman is deaf, is that he should put away his blind prejudice. He should cease to believe that landlords have horns and that tenants are, on all occasions, angels. He should realise that what benefits would-be tenants is a continuing provision of housing accommodation.
If the clause were only to stop 100 units from going out of existence I feel the Minister would agree with me that it would have done something to meet the difficulties of those poor people who are seeking rented accommodation and may not be able to get it.

Mr. Freeson: I take it, if the views of the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) represent the views of the Opposition, that we must assume that it is Conservative Party policy not only to repeal this measure when it is enacted—if the Conservatives get back into power in due time—but also to seek to repeal the Rent Act 1968, which covers a much wider area of housing accommodation than this Bill. I see the hon. Members opposite nodding. I am interested to have it confirmed that there is at least a reasonable proportion of Conservative Members who support those views and would apply them to the 1968 Act, which, of course, the last administration had every opportunity to repeal while they were in office for three-and-a-half years.
Since it was introduced to try to cancel out the effect of the then Conservative Government's Rent Act of 1957, which decontrolled the market pretty rapidly and produced the biggest slump in the provision of rented accommodation that the country has seen, the country will find this interesting.
Before I deal with the clause I must express my continued astonishment at the way in which Tory Members, in arguing


this kind of clause—and we have had several arguments on this issue in Committee—present the argument as if the introduction of this measure will compel people who wish to be on the move to stay where they are now. There is no such proposition in the Bill any more than there was such a proposition in the 1968 Act, which gave statutory security of tenure to the majority of unfurnished tenants throughout the country.
We must distinguish between different kinds of transient tenants. Broadly speaking they fall into two kinds—those who move voluntarily because their jobs or their desires take them somewhere else, to other accommodation, other towns or other parts of the city, and who then just voluntarily cease their tenancies and move on, and those many others who are compulsory transients, who have no security and are required to leave their tenancies. This Bill gives the opportunity to those who would be required to move on to stay, subject to the ruling of the court. Surely there is nothing better than that to create a proper balance in law between the rights of the landlord and the rights of the tenant—as we have done in the 1968 Act.
I am astonished that we should get this kind of argument each time this type of amendment is presented. Hon. Members suggest that the Bill will compel people to stay where they are and that their amendments will enable them to move around. No one is preventing them from moving. What we are trying to do is to introduce into legislation, as we did in the 1968 Act, the right to stay in certain circumstances when tenants wish to stay and when they would otherwise—and this is often the case at present—be compelled to move.
8.0 p.m.
That leads me to the label given to the Bill by the hon. and learned Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies). He said that we had virtually described the Bill as a charter for furnished tenants. The hon. and learned Gentleman described it additionally as a charter for homelessness. It is clear that he has not been in touch with the large number of housing experts, directors of housing and social welfare departments in our big cities, particularly in the London area, who have been saying for a long time that the biggest single cause of homelessness

which they have to tackle is insecurity for the vast majority of furnished tenants in most of the stress areas. That is what is said by people who have to deal with the human and physical problems connected with the eviction of families.
The Bill is not a charter for homelessness; it is the very reverse. If one had to give it a label, I would say that it was a charter for better landlord-tenant relationships.

Mr. A. P. Costain: Does the Minister seriously think that the Bill will make one more furnished house available? What should I say to a constituent who says "I want to let my house for a short time. How can I regain possession?".

Mr. Freeson: If the hon. Gentleman will read the Bill, he may be in a better position—[Interruption.] We now have the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill), our housing expert on the benches opposite, interrupting from a sedentary position, as is his usual practice.
The hon. and learned Member for Thanet, West will find set out in the Bill the situations in which people may seek to let on short lettings, which I gather is the matter about which he is concerned. There are powers to go to the court and obtain possession in such short letting situations. It is referred to as Case 10B.

Mr. Rees-Davies: I agree with part of what the Minister says, but the important factor is this. The hon. Gentleman said that it was in the stress areas where there was difficulty about homelessness in which the Bill would give security of tenure. We are not here dealing with stress areas. We seek to exclude this class of tenancy all over the country because it does not fall within the matter about which there is cause for complaint.

Mr. Freeson: We are concerned to establish rights to stay within the law for all tenants in circumstances of this kind. We are not trying to establish geographical divisions between one part of the country and another in relation to tenancy rights, any more than was done under the Rent Act 1968.
The right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) referred to the Law of Property Act 1969 as being the basis for his proposal.


The situation of residential tenants cannot be regarded as analogous to that of business tenants. It never has been right, in my view, to put them in the same class. For business tenants, rented accommodation is neither generally in short supply, as it is for residential tenants, nor is it—and this is the most important point—the necessity of life for families which residential accommodation is in any town or city. It is not right to compare the two in dealing with this issue.

Mr. Graham Page: It is the necessity of life when dealing with business premises where the goodwill is concerned and the tenant may have taken from him the living for which he has worked for years and for which he has saved. It is just as important, and the point is almost exactly the same in parallel.

Mr. Freeson: The right hon. Gentleman has rather reversed his position. He has quoted, quite rightly, the position of a small business which constitutes the livelihood of the people concerned who could, in certain circumstances, have it taken from them at the end of the tenancy. What the right hon. Gentleman is putting forward in his proposal is not that situation but a procedure whereby people may jointly contract out—in this case contract out of the Rent Bill.
The clause would empower the court, which is unspecified, to authorise the exclusion of the tenancy concerned from Rent Act protection. The power would arise, first, where the grant of a fixed term tenancy was proposed and the intending landlord and tenant jointly applied for its exclusion; and, secondly, where the landlord and the tenant have agreed that the tenancy and the protection afforded to it by the Rent Act are to be surrendered on a date or in circumstances or on terms specified in the agreement and apply for authorisation of the surrender of the tenancy and the protection.
This is clearly an attempt to provide for contracting out of the legislation subject to the authority of the court. It could be acceptable to those who reject the concept of legislation of this kind—a view with which I disagree but which I can respect, and, even if it was not specifically stated, it is a view which I know the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury

takes on all aspects of the economy. Although I disagree with it, I know where the hon. Gentleman stands and I can respect his argument.
But I do not accept that contracting out is acceptable if it leads to the court taking into account in exercising its discretionary power a joint agreement between tenants which would lead to the exclusion from the Bill of certain premises, particularly bearing in mind that there is nothing in the Bill to compel people to stay if they wish to move on, which is one of the main arguments put forward in support of the clause. There is merely a right in the Bill to stay subject to the legal process if the tenant has no desire to move and is complying with the terms of the agreement.
There is and should be no contracting out of the Rent Acts. There is not under the Rent Act 1968, and I do not believe that it would be right under the Bill. The protection of the legislation should be available at all times to those who need it or who may need it unless a ground for possession is shown to exist and, in the exercise of its discretion, the county court holds it to be reasonable that the tenancy should end. The argument for paragraph (a) in the clause presumably is that it would encourage the supply of dwellings to let by private landlords. We have been over this ground time and again in Committee. The two sides of the House do not agree about it. I merely restate, without argument, the position I have taken in the past. It is a fairly moderate view which I do not argue strongly one way or the other. At the very least, there is no evidence to show that there has been a rise or fall in the number of rented dwellings available on the market according to whether there has been restrictive or decontrol legislation. There has been a steady loss for many years, and whatever legislation there has been on this score has not made much difference.
It is much more difficult to see what justification may be advanced for paragraph (b), the objective of which is hard to understand. It seems to be entirely without clarity. There is nothing in the Rent Acts to prevent a tenant from surrendering his tenancy or from surrendering it on conditions which the landlord is willing to meet. If the tenant wishes to move on, there is nothing to compel


him to stay. Therefore, the general grounds upon which the case is argued are invalid in practice. The principle that a property should be contracted out in a particular case from a general protection under the Rent Acts which should be available to all, subject to the legal processes laid down in the Bill, is unacceptable.

Mrs. Thatcher: I address my comments briefly to the clause which is before us. The Minister has achieved his main objective of ensuring that existing tenants have protection. He has taken no steps whatsoever to ensure that a future supply of accommodation is available. This we regard as extremely serious. In spite of what he says, under the Bill the supply of accommodation will dry up. The effect of controlling accommodation over the years has been to reduce the amount available for renting.
The clause is an attempt to ensure that accommodation which would otherwise not be let will be let. The accommodation covered by the clause will not come on the market unless there is some possibility of contracting out of the Bill, for the simple and human reason, which I would expect the Minister to understand, that people are afraid that they will not be able to get possession of their own property when they need it.
Several relevant cases were brought to my notice last week. One family had had a house left to them by their parents who had died. They wished to retain the house so that they or their children could eventually live in it. They could not afford to retain it unless they let it furnished because they were unable to afford the outgoings. They wrote to say that unless they could be sure of getting possession—and they cannot under the Bill—they

would not let the house but would have to sell it.

I know of other property being bought up for redevelopment. Nothing is more irritating than to see houses being bought, boarded up and taken out of use. The clause would enable those properties to be let. Unless we take action, this accommodation will not be available, and the hon. Gentleman knows it. That is why he will not face the clause and tries to deal with it by unsubstantiated assertions.

8.15 p.m.

The clause follows a precedent. The Minister said that earning a living was not like wanting a house. Unless a person earns a living he cannot afford a house. The drafting of the clause follows in almost every particular the drafting of the previous clause in the Socialist Law of Property Act 1969. I was going to say that the clause has a respectable ancestor, but I will refrain from doing so and say instead that it has a pale pink ancestor, but the pale pink of the past is the scarlet of today.

The landlord and tenant could apply to the court and it is not mandatory upon the court to approve an agreement. The court has a discretion. What it is that makes the Minister think that the courts could not spot agreements arrived at under duress, when the courts have far more experience than we have, is a mystery.

The Minister has taken no steps to ensure a supply of furnished accommodation, and we believe that we should vote upon this modest clause in the Division Lobby.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes, 235, Noes 262.

Division No. 108.]
AYES
[8.17 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Boyson, Dr. Rhodes (Brent, N.)
Chalker, Mrs. Lynda


Aitken, Jonathan
Braine, Sir Bernard
Channon, Paul


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Bray, Ronald
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Brewis, John
Clark, A. K. M. (Plymouth, Sutton)


Archer, Jeffrey
Brittan, Leon
Clark, William (Croydon, S.)


Atkins, Rt. Hn. Humphrey (Spelthorne)
Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Awdry, Daniel
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Clegg, Walter


Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord
Bryan, Sir Paul
Cockcroft, John


Bell, Ronald
Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Cooke, Robert (Bristol, W.)


Benyon, W.
Buck, Antony
Cope, John


Berry, Hon. Anthony
Budgen, Nick
Cormack, Patrick


Biggs-Davison, John
Bulmer, Esmond
Costain, A. P.


Blaker, Peter
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Crowder, F. P.


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.)
Carlisle, Mark
Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)


Boscawen, Hon. Robert
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. James




Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Jenkin, Rt. Hn. P. (R'dge W'std &amp; W'fd)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Jessel, Toby
Prior, Rt. Hn. James


Dixon, Piers
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Raison, Timothy


Dodds-Parker, Sir Douglas
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rathbone, Tim


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Redmond, Robert


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Kilfedder, James A.
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Drayson, Burnaby
Kimball, Marcus
Rees-Davies, W. R.


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Renton, R. T. (Mid-Sussex)


Durant, Tony
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Kirk, Peter
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.-W.)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Elliott, Sir William
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Emery, Peter
Knox, David
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Eyre, Reginald
Lamont, Norman
Rost, Peter (Derbyshire, S.-E.)


Fairgrieve, Russell
Lane, David
Sainsbury, Tim


Farr, John
Langford-Holt, Sir John
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Fell, Anthony
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Lawrence, Ivan
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Fidler, Michael
Lawson, Nigel (Blaby)
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Shelton, William (L'mb'th, Streath'm)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Lewis, Kenneth (Rtland &amp; Stmford)
Shersby, Michael


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'field)
Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; Waterloo)
Silvester, Fred


Fox, Marcus
Luce, Richard
Sims, Roger


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
MacArthur, Ian
Sinclair, Sir George


Fry, Peter
McCrindle, R. A.
Skeet, T. H. H.


Gardiner, George (Reigate &amp; Banstead)
Macfarlane, Neil
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'm'ngton)


Gardner, Edward (S. Fylde)
MacGregor, John
Spence, John


Gibson-Watt, Rt. Hn. David
McLaren, Martin
Spicer, Michael (Worcestershire, S.)


Gilmour, Rt. Hn. Ian (Ch'sh'&amp;Amsh'm)
McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)
Sproat, Iain


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Stainton, Keith


Glyn, Dr. Alan
Madel, David
Stanbrook, Ivor


Godber, Rt. Hn. Joseph
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Stanley, John


Goodhart, Philip
Marten, Neil
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Goodhew, Victor
Mather, Carol
Stodart, R. Hn. A. (Edinburgh, W.)


Goodlad, A.
Maude, Angus
Stokes, John


Gorst, John
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Tapsell, Peter


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Taylor, Edward M. (Glgow, C'cart)


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Mayhew, Patrick (Royal T'bridge Wells)
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Tebbit, Norman


Gray, Hamish
Miller, Hal (B'grove &amp; R'ditch)
Thatcher, Rt. Hn Margaret


Grieve, Percy
Miscampbell, Norman
Townsend, C. D.


Grist, Ian
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Trotter, Neville


Grylls, Michael
Moate, Roger
Tugendhat, Christopher


Gurden, Harold
Molyneaux, James
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Hall, Sir John
Money, Ernle
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Hall-Davies, A. G. F.
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Viggers, Peter


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Morris, Michael (Northampton, S.)
Waddington, David


Hannam, John
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Morrison, Peter (City of Chester)
Walker, Rt. He. Peter (Worcester)


Hastings, Stephen
Mudd, David
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Havers, Sir Michael
Heave, Alrey
Wall, Patrick


Hawkins, Paul
Neubert, Michael
Warren, Kenneth


Hayhoe, Barney
Newton, Tony (Braintree)
Weatherill, Bernard


Henderson, J. S. B. (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Normanton, Tom
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Heseltine, Michael
Nott, John
Wiggin, Jerry


Hill, James A.
Onslow, Cranley
Winterton, Nicholas


Holland, Philip
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Hordern, Peter
Osborn, John
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Howe, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Surrey, E.)
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)
Worsley, Sir Marcus


Howell, David (Guildford)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Young, Sir George (Ealing, Acton)


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, North)
Paisley, Rev. Ian
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hunt, John
Parkinson, Cecil (Hertfordshire, S.)



Hurd, Douglas
Pattie, Geoffrey
Mr. John Stradling Thomas and


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Percival, Ian
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant.


James, David
Pink, R. Bonner





NOES


Archer, Peter
Booth, Albert
Cocks, Michael


Armstrong, Ernest
Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Coleman, Donald


Ashley, Jack
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Colquhoun, Mrs. M. N.


Ashton, Joe
Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Conlan, Bernard


Atkins, Ronald
Bradley, Tom
Cook, Robert F. (Edinburgh, C.)


Atkinson, Norman
Broughton, Sir Alfred
Crawshaw, Richard


Bagier, Gordon, A. T.
Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan)
Cronin, John


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Brown, Ronald (H'kney, S.&amp;Sh'ditch)
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony


Barnett, Joel (Heywood &amp; Royton)
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Springb'rn
Cryer, G. R.


Baxter, William
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (H'gey, Wood Green)
Cunningham, G. (Isl'ngtn, S &amp; F sb'ry)


Beith, A. J.
Callaghan, Jim (M'dd'ton &amp; Pr'wch)
Dalyell, Tam


Bennett, Andrew F. (Stockport, N.)
Campbell, Ian
Davidson, Arthur


Bidwell, Sydney
Cant, R. B.
Davies, Bryan (Enfield, N.)


Bishop, E. S.
Carter, Ray
Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Davies, Ifor (Gower)


Boardman, H.
Clemitson, Ivor
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)







Deakins, Eric
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Robert, Gwilym (Cannock)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds, W.)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Roderick, Caerwyn E.


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Doig, Peter
Judd, Frank
Rodgers, William (Teesside, St'ckton)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Kaufman, Gerald
Rooker, J. W.


Duffy, A. E. P.
Kelley, Richard
Rose, Paul B.


Dunn, James A.
Kerr, Russell
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Rowlands, Edward


Edelman, Maurice
Lamborn, Harry
Sandelson, Neville


Edge, Geoff
Lamond, James
Shaw, Arnold (Redbridge, Ilford, S.)


Edwards, Robert (W'hampton, S. E.)
Latham, Arthur (Cityof W' minster P'ton)
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scunthorpe)
Lawson, George (Motherwell &amp; Wishaw)
Short, Rt. Hn. E. (N'ctle-u-Tyne)


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Leadbitter, Ted
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (L'sham, D'ford)


English, Michael
Lee, John
Silverman, Julius


Ennals, David
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Skinner, Dennis


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Lewis, Arthur (Newham, N.)
Small, William


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Ewing, Mrs. Winifred (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Lipton, Marcus
Snape, Peter


Faulds, Andrew
Loyden, Eddie
Spearing, Nigel


Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Spriggs, Leslie


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, W.)
Stallard, A. W.


Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)
MacCormick, Iain
Steel, David


Flannery, Martin
McElhone, Frank
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Stewart, Rt. Hn. M. (H'sth, Fulh'm)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McGuire, Michael
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Foot, Rt. Hn. Michael
Maclennan, Robert
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Ford, Ben
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Stott, Roger


Forrester, John
McNamara, Kevin
Strang, Gavin


Fowler, Gerry (The Wrekin)
Madden, M. O. F.
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)
Magee, Bryan
Summerskill, Rt. Hn. Shirley


Freeson, Reginald
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Swain, Thomas


Freud, Clement
Marks, Kenneth
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Galpern, Sir Myer
Marquand, David
Thorne, Stan (Preston, S.)


Garrett, John (Norwich, S.)
Marshall, Dr. Edmund (Goole)
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Mayhew, Christopher (G'wh, W'wch, E)
Tierney, Sydney


George, Bruce
Meacher, Michael
Tinn, James


Gilbert, Dr. John
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Tomlinson, John


Golding, John
Mendelson, John
Tomney, Frank


Gourlay, Harry
Mikardo, Ian
Torney, Tom


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Millan, Bruce
Tuck, Raphael


Grant, John (Islington, C.)
Miller, Dr. M. S. (E. Kilbride)
Tyler, Paul


Griffiths, Eddie (Sheffield, Brightside)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton. Itchen)
Urwin, T. W.


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Molloy, William
Varley, Rt. Hn. Eric G.


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Moonman, Eric
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Hamilton, William (Fife, C.)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, Ladywood)


Hamling, William
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Hardy, Peter
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Harper, Joseph
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Watkins, David


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Murray, Ronald King
Watt, Hamish


Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Newens, Stanley (Harlow)
Weitzman, David


Hattersley, Roy
Oakes, Gordon
Wellbeloved, James


Hatton, Frank
Ogden, Eric
White, James


Heffer, Eric S.
O'Halloran, Michael
Whitehead, Phillip


Henderson, Douglas (Ab'rd'nsh're, E)
O'Malley, Brian
Whitlock, William


Hooley, Frank
Orbach, Maurice
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Horam, John
Ovenden, John
Williams, Alan Lee (Hvrng, Hchurch)


Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Padley, Walter
Williams, Rt. Hn. Shirley (H'f'd &amp; St'ge).


Huckfield, Leslie
Palmer, Arthur
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Pardoe, John
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Park, George (Coventry, N. E.)
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee, E.)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, North)
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S. E.)


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Winstanley, Dr. Michael


Hunter, Adam
Perry, Ernest G.
Wise, Mrs. Audrey


Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (L'p'l, Edge Hl)
Phipps, Dr. Colin
Woodall, Alec


Jackson, Colin
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg
Woof, Robert


Janner, Greville
Prescott, John
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Price, Christopher (Lewisham, W.)
Young, David (Bolton, E.)


Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Price, William (Rugby)



Jenkins, Hugh (W'worth, Putney)
Radice, Giles
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (B'ham, St'fd)
Reid, George
Mr. J. D. Dormand and


John, Brynmor
Richardson, Miss Jo
Mr. Tom Cox.


Johnson, James (K'ston upon Hull, W)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 4

CERTAIN NEW LETTINGS OF RESIDENTIAL ACCOMMODATION NOT TO BE PROTECTED

'A tenancy granted after the commencement of this Act in respect of a dwellinghouse which has not been let on a residential tenancy within a period of seven years prior to the commencement of this Act shall not be a protected tenancy for the purposes of the Rent Act'.—[Mr. Rossi.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Rossi: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The clause relates to certain new lettings of residential accommodation not to be protected. It stems from the arguments which we tried to put forward on new Clause 3, on which we have just voted. The overriding anxiety of the Opposition is to try to achieve a situation whereby the maximum amount of accommodation possible comes forward to provide homes for the people. Faced with the situation of growing homelessness in the cities, faced also with countless people who live in unsatisfactory and overcrowded conditions in multi-occupation, we believe that it is vital to use every possible resource to help citizens who find themselves in those conditions.
We discussed this matter in Committee and said that we could not contemplate a situation—a situation apparently contemplated by the Government—where people either were council tenants or owner occupiers because there was little else to be made available for them. In Committee we had the benefit of a survey carried out by Shelter in Islington. It was shown that in an area of extreme housing stress, with several hundred families living at a ratio of more than one and a half people per room, there were still a large number of rooms not used for housing purposes which could be so used. The survey also showed that, out of the total accommodation, there were 2,000 persons in the area and 2,400 rooms. In other words, in an area regarded by the local authority as one of extreme housing stress there was still a very large proportion of unused rooms which, if used, would have reduced the overcrowding considerably.
8.30 p.m.
Hon. Members have only to look round the districts of London and the cities outside

London to see that there is a great deal of accommodation, for example, over shops, which is unused for housing accommodation and which would be used for housing accommodation given certain circumstances. The owners of these shops are quite prepared to allow the rooms above them to be used for storage purposes or to dump a lot of rubbish that they do not need because they feel that, if and when the time comes that they wish to sell their businesses, they want to be able to sell with accommodation which the new proprietors of those shops can live in and therefore make the transactions far more attractive or again use for office, storage purposes, and so on.
If the owner of such a shop knew that he could let that accommodation and have it back relatively easily, he would be encouraged to let it. At the moment, there is every disincentive in his way.
Similarly, up and down the country there is a considerable amount of accommodation owned by elderly people. There are countless numbers of houses belonging to people whose families have grown up and left. Rooms and in some cases whole floors have become vacant. Again, that accommodation is not used for families looking desparately for somewhere to live because the elderly house owners fear the consequences of controls and that, if they let and they find themselves with objectionable tenants, they will not be able to get rid of them without a great legal process or that the rents which they might command would not make it sufficiently worth while to go to the trouble of allowing people into their homes.
We feel that if a new clause of this kind were accepted by the House, there would be an encouragement to the kind of people that I have in mind to make available the accommodation that I have mentioned.
The clause speaks of new lettings—that is, lettings taking place after the passing of the Bill. It also seeks as far as possible to define accommodation which has not been let before. The objective of the clause is to bring within the general pool of housing accommodation flats and rooms which would not otherwise be let. However, it is somewhat difficult to define accommodation that has not been let before. For example, how fat back does one have to go historically to show that


accommodation has never been let before? What legal proofs are available to show that never since a house was built has it or part of it been let?
Faced with the difficulty of legal definition of that kind, we have hit upon a period of time which we believe to be fair and reasonable to the people concerned but long enough to prevent any abuse arising We have suggested a period of seven years. In other words, the accommodation which we propose to bring within the provisions of the clause must be accommodation that has not been let for a period of at least seven years prior to the commencement of the Bill, and then the first letting takes place after the passing of the Bill.
We cannot believe that there is anyone who has deliberately been keeping property empty and not letting it for seven years purely in anticipation of the Opposition coming forward on 30th July 1974 to propose this clause. We feel that a period of as long as seven years is bound to avoid any possibility of abuse. What is more, the lack of any letting for at least seven years indicates a desire not to let.
It is people with the desire not to let whom we wish to encourage to bring forward their accommodation on to the market and to remove all disincentives against them so doing. We feel that the only way that that can be done is by providing that any tenancies that are created where these circumstances arise shall not be protected by the Act. That is the only way that this vast pool of untapped accommodation can be brought forward to provide desperately needed housing for the homeless and those living in conditions of overcrowding and multi-occupation.
I know that this concept does not recommend itself immediately to the Government, because it is within their philosophy to bring all privately rented property into public ownership. Therefore, anything that encourages the provision of private rented accommodation they are automatically opposed to. They also believe that the provision of rented accommodation must be made by the public sector. But I doubt whether, even with the best will in the world, the Government, through the public sector, will be able to deal with the urgent housing problems which exist in this country now.
I recall reading in my evening paper, I think today—it may have been yesterday—that the Greater London Council is now five years in arrears with its housing programme. It is in arrears with its housing programme and has no opportunity of catching up because of problems concerned with the acquisition of land—the cost factor, the delays in obtaining approval of plans through the various departments, the delays in then getting the building started, and all the rest of it.
Local authority housing is a very slow creature at the best of times. We cannot afford to wait for that provision to provide for those who are in need now.
Apart from that, there is the burden on public expenditure. We know from figures that we have already discussed that a £10,000 newly constructed council house costs the ratepayer and the taxpayer about £900 to £1,000 per annum in subsidy. In London the average cost of new construction and of acquisition under the municipalisation scheme is in the region of £15,000. Therefore, the moment that we start to consider making total provision out of the public sector for all the homeless and all people living in bad housing conditions, we are faced with an economic burden that the taxpayer and ratepayer, groaning as he is at the moment, will not be prepared to undertake.
Therefore, it is absolutely necessary, if we wish to make immediate provision that does not impose intolerable burdens upon the taxpayer and the ratepayer, to look as far as we can to the private sector and to encourage the bringing forward of unused accommodation which is begging to be used, begging to be rented, if the owners had removed from them the disincentive which up till now has prevented them making that accommodation available.

Mr. Kaufman: The speech of the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) was remarkable even by the standards that we have come to expect of him in advancing his case on the Bill. He repeated what he has said before, that he does not believe that the public sector can cope with the housing problem. He now adds to that the remarkable concept that he does not believe that the taxpayer is ready to make available the necessary revenue to deal with the housing problem.

Mr. Rossi: Nor the ratepayer.

Mr. Kaufman: I accept that; I include the ratepayer.
That is an extraordinary statement. If events continue as some commentators say they may, I must warn the hon. Gentleman that I shall be ready to use the statement that he has made in the campaign which we may shortly be conducting, so that this party can continue its unimpeded progress towards majority rule—

Mr. Rossi: Use the figures.

Mr. Kaufman: I shall certainly use the figures.
We accept that to provide decent houses for our citizens will cost considerable sums, but the hon. Gentleman's alternative, that we should rely on some notional pool of furnished accommodation for which he can supply no statistics or for which none is available, is unacceptable to us.
If we are to debate alternative housing programmes, with the Labour Party maintaining that the housing problem must be solved partly by making rented accommodation available in the public sector and partly by providing sufficient facilities for people to own their own houses and the Conservative Party saying that we should solve the problem by removing protection from tenants so that landlords will make such accommodation available, that is a controversy on which I am ready to confront the hon. Gentleman and his party at any time.

Mr. Rossi: The Minister must not put words into my mouth. I did not speak of removing protection from tenants. I am speaking of accommodation which is not let and never will be let unless some incentive is given. That is an entirely different proposition. Those tenants not merely are irrelevant to the protection question: they will not have a home at all unless something is done to help them.

Mr. Kaufman: I apologise. The hon. Gentleman was, of course, saying that the way to solve the housing problem is by adding to the rented stock accommodation for tenants who would have no protection. I do not think that I am now misrepresenting him, and I am still perfectly satisfied with the difference between our case and his.
The hon. Gentleman was fair. He said that we believed that the rented sector should be dealt with by what we like to call the "social landlord"—that is, mainly by local authorities but also by the voluntary housing associations. This, of course, excludes—this saving is explicitly included in the Bill—those people who share accommodation with a resident landlord. We have made a specific saving and have indeed extended it to the unfurnished tenant.
The hon. Gentleman aptly told the House that his arguments had been rehearsed before. They were rehearsed earlier this evening and at considerable length in Committee. Hon. Members opposite used to groan with the tedium of it when I told them that these were matters of principle, even of ideology, on which we had to differ from them. They will have to groan again, because I have to tell them that our arguments on similar amendments and new clauses of theirs are arguments which it is necessary for me to repeat now. Even if it were true—there is no real reason to believe that it is true—that the kinds of exceptions from protection of the Bill were to prove a sufficient incentive to those who are not currently letting property, which to my mind is very doubtful, we on the Government side of the House insist that the incentive could be given only by leaving the tenants affected entirely at the mercy of landlords with regard to rent and security.
This would be quite contrary to the principle of the Bill. It would be contrary to the philosophy held by the Government side of the House. I must tell the hon. Gentleman, therefore, that his proposal is not acceptable to the Government.

8.45 p.m.

Mrs. Thatcher: This new clause is another attempt to ensure that there will be a supply of furnished accommodation. The Under-Secretary and his hon. Friends cannot possibly solve the housing problem in the absence of a supply of houses. A supply of furnished accommodation is a part of the market.
The only possible personal interest that I have in the Bill, not being a land owner or a letter—unlike some hon. Members on the Government side of the House—is to ensure that my two children, when they leave home to take up their training


in other towns, are able to get furnished accommodation. Like many other young people, that is the only source available to them for getting living accommodation away from home.
At present the scales are balanced against the landlord who wishes to provide that accommodation. The new clause will not affect existing tenancies. It will only serve to bring on to the market tenancies which would not otherwise come on to the market. It may serve to encourage people to do conversions especially for furnished letting and to build for furnished letting. All that it can do is to increase the supply of accommodation.

The Under-Secretary said that people would be at the mercy of the landlord. But he knows that it would be quite possible to provide for term tenancies for a specific number of years, in which everyone knows where he stands at the outset, but he refuses to do it. We think that he and his hon. Friends have a blind spot about ensuring a supply, and we shall take our opposition to his view-point into the Lobby and vote in favour of the new clause.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 222, Noes 257.

Division No. 109.]
AYES
[8.48 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Farr, John
Kitson, Sir Timothy


Aitken, Jonathan
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Knight, Mrs. Jill


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Fidler, Michael
Knox, David


Archer, Jeffrey
Fisher, Sir Nigel
Lamont, Norman


Atkins, Rt. Hn. Humphrey (Spelthorne)
Fookes, Miss Janet
Lane, David


Awdry, Daniel
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'field)
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord
Fox, Marcus
Latham, Michael (Melton)


Bell, Ronald
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Lawrence, Ivan


Benyon, W.
Fry, Peter
Lawson, Nigel (Blaby)


Berry, Hon. Anthony
Gardiner, George (Reigate &amp; Banstead)
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Biggs-Davison, John
Gardner, Edward (S. Fylde)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rtland &amp; Stmford)


Blaker, Peter
Gibson-Watt, Rt. Hn. David
Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; Waterloo)


Boscawen, Hon. Robert
Gilmour, Rt. Hn. Ian (Ch'sh &amp; Amsh'm)
Luce, Richard


Boyson, Dr. Rhodes (Brent, N.)
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
MacArthur, Ian


Braine, Sir Bernard
Glyn, Dr. Alan
McCrindle, R. A.


Bray, Ronald
Godber, Rt. Hn. Joseph
Macfarlane, Neil


Brittan, Leon
Goodhart, Philip
MacGregor, John


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Goodhew, Victor
McLaren, Martin


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Goodlad, A.
McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Gorst, John
Madel, David


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Marten, Neil


Buck, Antony
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Maude, Angus


Budgen, Nick
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald


Bulmer, Esmond
Gray, Hamish
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Grieve, Percy
Mayhew, Patrick (Royal T'bridge Wells)


Carlisle, Mark
Grist, Ian
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Grylls, Michael
Miller, Hal (B'grove &amp; R'ditch)


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Gurden, Harold
Miscampbell, Norman


Channon, Paul
Hall, Sir John
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Moate, Roger


Clark, A. K. M. (Plymouth, Sutton)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Molyneaux, James


Clark, William (Croydon, S.)
Hannam, John
Money, Ernle


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.


Clegg, Walter
Havers, Sir Michael
Morris, Michael (Northampton, S.)


Cockcroft, John
Hawkins, Paul
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Cope, John
Hayhoe, Barney
Morrison, Peter (City of Chester)


Cormack, Patrick
Henderson, J. S. B. (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Mudd, David


Costain, A. P.
Heseltine, Michael
Neave, Alrey


Crowder, F. P.
Hill, James A.
Neubert, Michael


Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Holland, Philip
Newton, Tony (Braintree)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. James
Hordern, Peter
Normanton, Tom


Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Howe, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Surrey, E)
Nott, John


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Howell, David (Guildford)
Onslow, Cranley


Dixon, Piers
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, North)
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


Dodds-Parker, Sir Douglas
Hunt, John
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Hurd, Douglas
Osborn, John


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)


Drayson, Burnaby
James, David
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Jenkin, Rt. Hn. P. (R'dge W'std &amp; W'fd)
Parkinson, Cecil (Hertfordshire, S.)


Durant, Tony
Jessel, Toby
Pattie, Geoffrey


Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Percival, Ian


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Pink, R. Bonner


Elliott, Sir William
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Prior, Rt. Hn. James


Emery, Peter
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Raison, Timothy


Eyre, Reginald
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Rathbone, Tim


Fairgrieve, Russell
Kirk, Peter
Redmond, Robert




Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
Spence, John
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Spicer, Michael (Worcestershire, S.)
Viggers, Peter


Renton, R. T. (Mid-Sussex)
Sproat, Iain
Waddington, David


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Stainton, Keith
Welder, David (Clitheroe)


Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Stanbrook, Ivor
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Stanley, John
Wall, Patrick


Rost, Peter (Derbyshire, S.-E.)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Warren, Kenneth


Sainsbury, Tim
Stodart, Rt. Hn. A. (Edinburgh, W.)
Weatherill, Bernard


St. John-Stevas, Norman
Stokes, John
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Scott-Hopkins, James
Stradling Thomas, John
Wiggin, Jerry


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Tapsell, Peter
Winterton, Nicholas


Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Taylor, Edward M. (Glgow, C'cart)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Shelton, William (L'mb'th, Streath'm)
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Shersby, Michael
Tebbit, Norman
Worsley, Sir Marcus


Silvester, Fred
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Young, Sir George (Ealing, Acton)


Sims, Roger
Townsend, C. D.



Sinclair, Sir George
Trotter, Neville
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Skeet, T. H. H.
Tugendhat, Christopher
Mr. Spencer Le Merchant and


Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'm'ngton)
van Straubenzee, W. R.
Mr. Michael Roberts.




NOES


Archer, Peter
English, Michael
Kaufman, Gerald


Armstrong, Ernest
Ennals, David
Kelley, Richard


Ashton, Joe
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Kerr, Russell


Atkins, Rt. Hon. Ronald (Preston N.)
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Atkinson, Norman
Ewing, Mrs. Winifred (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Lamborn, Harry


Bagier, Gordon, A. T.
Faulds, Andrew
Lamond, James


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Latham, Arthur (City of W'minster P'ton)


Barnett, Joel (Heywood &amp; Royton)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Lawson, George (Motherwell &amp; Wishaw)


Baxter, William
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)
Leadbitter, Ted


Beith, A. J.
Flannery, Martin
Lee, John


Bennett, Andrew F. (Stockport, N.)
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold


Bidwell, Sydney
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lewis, Arthur (Newham, N.)


Bishop, E. S.
Foot, Rt. Hn. Michael
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Ford, Ben
Lipton, Marcus


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Forrester, John
Leyden, Eddie


Booth, Albert
Fowler, Gerry (The Wrekin)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, W.)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Freeson, Reginald
MacCormack, Iain


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Freud, Clement
McElhone, Frank


Bradley, Tom
Galpern, Sir Myer
MacFarquhar, Roderick


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Garrett, John (Norwich, S.)
McGuire, Michael


Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan)
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Maclennan, Robert


Brown, Ronald (H'kney, S. &amp; Sh'ditch)
George, Bruce
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Spring b'rn)
Gilbert, Dr. John
McNamara, Kevin


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (H'gey, Wood Green)
Golding, John
Madden, M. O. F.


Callaghan, Jim (M'dd'ton &amp; Pr'wich)
Gourley, Harry
Magee, Bryan


Campbell, Ian
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.


Cant, R. B.
Grant, John (Islington, C.)
Marks, Kenneth


Carter, Ray
Griffiths, Eddie (Sheffield, Brightside)
Marquand, David


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Marshall, Dr. Edmund (Goole)


Clemitson, Ivor
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mayhew, Christopher (G'wh, W'wch, E)


Cocks, Michael
Hamilton, William (Fife, C.)
Meacher, Michael


Coleman, Donald
Hamling, William
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Colquhoun, Mrs. M. N.
Hardy, Peter
Mendelson, John


Conlan, Bernard
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mikardo, Ian


Cook, Robert F. (Edinburgh, C.)
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Millan, Bruce


Crawshaw, Richard
Hattersley, Roy
Miller, Dr. M. S. (E. Kilbride)


Cronin, John
Heffer, Eric S.
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Henderson, Douglas (Ab'rd'nsh're, E)
Molloy, William


Cryer, G. R.
Hooley, Frank
Moonman, Eric


Cunningham, G. (Isl'ngt'n &amp; F'sb'ry)
Horam, John
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Dalyell, Tam
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Davidson, Arthur
Huckfield, Leslie
Morris, Rt. He. John (Aberavon)


Davies, Bryan (Enfield, N.)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Hughes Mark (Durham)
Murray, Ronald King


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, North)
Newens, Stanley (Harlow)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Oakes, Gordon


Deakins, Eric
Hunter, Adam
Ogden, Eric


Dean, Joseph (Leeds, W.)
Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (L'p'l, Edge Hl)
O'Halloran, Michael


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Jackson, Colin
O'Malley, Brian


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Janner, Greville
Ovenden, John


Doig, Peter
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Palmer, Arthur


Dormand, J. D.
Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Pardoe, John


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Jenkins, Hugh (W'worth, Putney)
Park, George (Coventry, N. E.)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (B'ham, St'fd)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Dunn, James A.
John, Brynmor
Pearl, Rt. Hn. Fred


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth
Johnson, James (K'ston upon Hull, W)
Perry, Ernest G.


Edelman, Maurice
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Phipps, Dr. Colin


Edge, Geoff
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Prentce, Rt. Hn. Reg


Edwards, Robert (W'hampton, S. E.)
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Prescott, John


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scunthorpe)
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Price, Christopher (Lewisham, W.)


Ellis Tom (Wrexham)
Judd, Frank
Price, William (Rugby)







Radice, Giles
Steel, David
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Reid, George
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)
Watkins, David


Richardson, Miss Jo
Stewart, Rt. Hn. M. (H'sth, Fulh'm)
Watt, Hamish


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Weitzman, David


Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Wellbeloved, James


Roderick, Caerwyn E.
Stott, Roger
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Strang, Gavin
Whitehead, Phillip


Rodgers, William (Teesside, St'ckton)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Whitlock, William


Rooker, J. W.
Summerskill, Rt. Hn. Shirley
Wigley, Dafydd (Caernarvon)


Rose, Paul B.
Swain, Thomas
Williams, Alan Lee (Hvrng, Hchurch)


Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Williams, Rt. Hn. Shirley (H'f'd &amp; St'ge)


Rowlands, Edward
Thorne, Stan (Preston, S.)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Sandelson, Neville
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Shaw, Arnold (Redbridge, Ilford, S.)
Tierney, Sydney
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee, E.)


Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Tinn, James
Wilson, William (Coventry, S. E.)


Short, Rt. Hn. E. (N'ctle-u-Tyne)
Tomlinson, John
Winstanley, Dr. Michael


Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (L'sham, D'ford)
Tomney, Frank
Wise, Mrs. Audrey


Silverman, Julius
Torney, Tom
Woodall, Alec


Skinner, Dennis
Tuck, Raphael
Woof, Robert


Small, William
Tyler, Paul
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Urwin, T. W.
Young, David (Bolton, E.)


Snape, Peter
Varley, Rt. Hn. Eric G.



Spearing, Nigel
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Spriggs, Leslie
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, Ladywood)
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Stallard, A. W.
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Mr. Tom Cox.

Question accordingly negatived

New Clause 5

HARASSMENT OF LANDLORD

"(1) In respect of premises to which the Rent Act applies if any person with intent to cause the landlord of any premises to refrain from exercising any right or pursuing any remedy in respect of the premises or part thereof does any act calculated to interfere with the peace or comfort of the landlord or members of his household he shall be guilty of an offence.

(2) The penalties for this offence of harassment shall be on a first conviction a fine of £400: on a second or subsequent conviction a fine of £750; and a term of imprisonment for a second or subsequent conviction shall be twelve months".—[Mr. Rees-Davies.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Rees-Davies: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Its purpose is simple and is in ordinary justice one which should be met by a Government. It seeks to ensure the same protection to the landlord as exists to the tenant, namely, to prevent harassment of the landlord by the tenant. It provides that if any person with intent to cause the landlord of any premises to refrain from exercising any right or pursuing any remedy in respect of the premises or part thereof does any act calculated to interfere with the peace or comfort of the landlord or members of his household he shall be guilty of an offence. The penalties are laid down.
Under earlier legislation—[Interruption.]
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can you manage to get the

hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) to contain himself and stop making a noise? He is engaging in a secondary speech of his own, so much so that I can hardly hear myself speak.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): I think that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is innocent. [Laughter.] Order. We have been reasonably good-tempered. This is our last night together for a while, I think.

Mr. Rees-Davies: I am delighted with that statement, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The picture in my mind of the hon. Member for Bolsover ever being innocent was enough to send me into guffaws of laughter. The hon. Gentleman would never have the capacity to plead guilty: he could never believe that he was.

Mr. Thomas Swain: He is always sober, though.

Mr. Rees-Davies: I resent that—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Let us get back to the clause.

Mr. Rees-Davies: If the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Swain) says that outside, he will have a writ on his head so fast that he will not know what hit him.
Perhaps I may re-open. It is very appropriate in the circumstances that I should be moving a new clause which deals with the question of harassment. Harassment does not always come from the landlord.
I am trying to deal with a serious and important matter. In the report of the


Francis Committee, which was set up by the previous Labour Government and which reported in 1971, a clear recommendation was made that the legislation to be brought into effect should put the landlord in the same position as the tenant.
Under the heading "The role of the local authorities" on page 111, we read:
There is one other aspect of this matter"—
the committee is dealing with harassment—
which has been touched upon by some witnesses viz. that individual landlords—e.g. elderly ladies—are sometimes harassed by tenants. Instances are given in the memorandum of evidence submitted to us by the National Citizens' Advice Bureaux Council. We recommend that it should be made an offence for 'any person with intent to cause the landlord of any premises to refrain from exercising any right or pursuing any remedy in respect of the premises or part thereof to do acts calculated to interfere with the peace or comfort of the landlord or members of his household'.
We on the Opposition side of the House recognise that sometimes the landlord is right and sometimes the tenant is right, but we do not have the extraordinary sort of paranoia that a number of Labour Members have, in which they feel that the landlord is always wrong and the tenant is always right. There are cases that hon. Members will know about from their regular surgeries in which the landlords are harassed by tenants in a number of ways.
There is a lacuna in the law, in that there is a criminal offence of harassment against the landlord but no similar provision where the tenant has harassed the landlord. After careful consideration of many cases and evidence, the entirely objective Francis Committee made that explicit recommendation, which has been completely overlooked.
Under the Rent Act 1968 there is an ordinary civil provision whereby one can recover possession when there has been a nuisance and annoyance occasioned to adjoining occupiers and others by acts calculated and carried out by the tenant, but there is nothing at all to deal with those cases where such acts take place against the landlord or members of his household.
I shall not burden the House with many examples, but there are a number of clear

cases of such harassment. For example, it is not uncommon to find tenants who, from time to time, have too much to drink and engage in grossly offensive behaviour to the landlord, very often putting him or her in fear and fright. Many such examples come to the notice of county court judges, but usually they arrive in court as a result of behaviour by the tenants towards other people, such as neighbours.
This Bill is designed to extend substantial powers of security to furnished tenants, and in the class of the more transient nature of furnished tenants one is more likely to find bad conduct towards the landlord—particularly towards the elderly landlord.
Many men bequeath property to their widows. This applies in working class areas as well as to other areas. Thus, many properties are owned by widows or elderly men. It is not difficult for them to be unfairly treated—to put the lightest complexion on it—by tenants using bullying tactics.
The new Clause cuts across party lines. Provision in the law for certain conduct by a landlord to be treated as a criminal offence should apply in similar terms to the tenants' behaviour towards the landlord.

Mr. Costain: I support the new clause. We all know of cases like that described by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies). I have a specific case, details of which I have sent to the Minister.
An elderly widow in my constituency was left a small block of flats by her husband for her income after his death. She had a heart attack, spent some time in hospital and now lives in the ground floor flat. The tenant living on the third floor is a postman who goes to work at 3.30 a.m. Every morning, when he starts his motorbike, he revs it up outside her window. The doctors have implored him to stop doing it but he persists. There is no redress for her. She cannot get him out because he has protection. Why cannot she have the same protection for herself as he has for his tenancy? I wish that the Under-Secretary of State would listen to the debate.

Mr. Kaufman: I was discussing very briefly with my hon. Friend the points


which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned and in which I am very interested.

Mr. Costain: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and I hope that this persuades him to give us the right reply. The Government now have an opportunity to show that they can do something to overcome the prejudice they have that the landlord is always wrong and the tenant always right. Recently, when I quoted the case of another widow owner of property who was in trouble, one hon. Member opposite simply said that widows should not own property. That is the view which some of his Left-wing back-bench colleagues take. I hope that in this case the hon. Gentleman will show that the Government are not prejudiced and will accept the new clause.

Sir John Eden: My interest in this aspect of the relationship between landlord and tenant goes back over a long time. More than 20 years ago, when I was a political candidate in a London constituency, I was made aware of the abuses which take place. Like my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies), I shall not go into the details; they must be known to the Under-Secretary of State. I accept what he said to me when I raised this matter in a debate in the House to which he replied; namely, that there are instances of grave abuse by landlords of their position against tenants. I come across examples of it in my constituency. I condemn them outright and do what I can to help the tenants.
However, I cannot blind myself to the existence of abuses by tenants against landlords. Because I have experienced so many examples of abuse in the time that I have been a Member, I join my hon. Friends in urging the Government to accept the new clause. There is no doubt that abuses are fairly extensive, perhaps much more extensive than the Government have chosen to recognise. I know that they accept that, to some extent, they exist. I wonder whether they have any idea of how widespread is the abuse. Perhaps I see it taking place to a greater extent in an area like Bournemouth than I did elsewhere because a large proportion of people who stay in accommodation for a comparatively short time are not native residents of the area.
Those who are inclined to be abusive to landlords take advantage of the relative age differential between them and the landlords. In nearly every case that I have in mind, though by no means all, the landlord is a retired person. In most cases he has come into possession of the property, which is let, largely as a result of having saved against his retirement and having invested in an additional property to that which he required for his use in order to supplement his income in old age.
This has become such a source of worry and concern to many people in my constituency that when I raised this subject in the House on an Adjournment debate fairly recently it gave rise to a considerable postbag of letters, mostly protesting against what the Minister said in reply in which he pointed out, in effect, that the best answer he could give to these people was that it was the Government's intention to end altogether what he called private landlordism. That is no answer. It is not the answer of a fair-minded person considering objectively and without bias the problem of human relationships.
I hope that since then the Minister has had the opportunity to reconsider his position. I hope that he has inquired of his advisers and friends about their experience and information on this subject.
The type of situation I have described often arises in the poorer districts where people who have taken up a tenancy have chosen to exercise a degree of muscularity to retain their hold on the premises. It is important that something is done to try to help landlords in such situations in which they are clearly victims of abuse. I hope that the Government will accept the new clause.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I hope that when he replies the Minister will at least accept the principle behind the clause if he cannot accept the clause itself. I represent a poor area, such as the right hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden) mentioned. There is much merit in the general argument and point of view he put forward. I have had experience of housing matters over many years. No one can support Rachmanism. If there is Rachmanism by a landlord it ought to be stopped, and if there is a minor form of Rachmanism by the tenant it also ought to be stopped.
I have had a number of such cases in which, as the right hon. Member for Bournemouth, West has pointed out, there are tenants who—let us be fair to them—are a little eccentric, or who, as the hon. and learned Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies) mentioned, may, if they are not dipsomaniacs, like to drink more than a landlord or landlady would wish. Such tenants may not be deliberately objectionable, but they sometimes create problems and do things which become objectionable to the landlord or landlady living in the same house.
I have known of cases in which immigrant problems have been created on this basis. An immigrant may own or control a house and live in part of it, and a tenant may resent being a tenant of a coloured landlord. Such a tenant may go deliberately out of his way to create problems, by doing such things as slamming doors or fixing on or removing locks. He may deliberately allow his children to play in the corridors of the house or run up and down the stairs, causing various problems.
Landladies and landlord have come to me complaining about this and I have taken the matter up with the local authority or the police. The police say that they cannot do anything, and the local authority rightly points out that it cannot do anything. Invariably, tenants behave in the way I have described because they want to get on to a council housing list. They already have adequate accommodation and so cannot get on the housing list in the normal way, especially in my area, where the list is enormous and in any case urgent housing needs must come first. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary knows of the housing problems in my constituency—he was there only today.
Tenants deliberately create problems so as to try to get the landlord or landlady to confirm that the accommodation is not suitable. Tenants hope that this will help them in their claim to be housed by the council. Some tenants have admitted to me that they have caused trouble or difficulty for landlords or landladies because they regard this as the only way of getting rehoused. I think that this is a bit much, particularly if old people are the victims of such behaviour.
I came across a case at the time of the last General Election, involving a dear old lady. I went round four times to see the tenant concerned. The lady had parted from her husband. Virtually every night of the week she had a gentleman friend in, and the gentleman friend had a girl friend in. There was never any proof that there was anything wrong going on. The landlady told me, "I am convinced my house is being made into a brothel." As far as such a thing could be proved, that was the position; she could not do anything about it.
The lady who was causing the bother came to see me and said that she wanted to be rehoused by the council. She said she had been on the waiting list for six months and had not been rehoused. I said, "I have got constituents who have been 16, even 26 years on the waiting list and they have not been rehoused."
The council has done a wonderful job in difficult circumstances. It is building lovely houses and flats. This sort of practice on the part of tenants is going on in some of the hard-pressed areas. They move into areas like mine. We have people coming from literally all over the world. They get temporary accommodation and then hope to cause a little bit of trouble so that they can be rehoused by the local authority. If the Minister cannot accept this clause I hope he will say that something can be done to deal with a legitimate grievance.

Mr. Emery: It is agreed that there is harassment of landlords by tenants. If that is so I cannot see why we should not insert this simple, reasonable amendment. If the Minister feels it is not correctly drafted I am certain that my hon. Friend would be willing to be guided by him. I would have thought that the principle is something which the Minister would want to accept as a matter of logic, since he has reasonably argued that he wants to be fair to landlord and tenant.
It might be argued that some of the points raised by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis) could be covered under Section 80(2)(b) of the Rent Act 1968, which allows for nuisance or annoyance when the dwelling has been used for immoral or illegal purposes.
I feel that the strength of the clause lies in the words:
the peace or comfort of the landlord".


That does not seem to be in any way covered by new Clause 1, which we have now passed. While that clause will obviously give some help, it is worth bearing in mind this further point about the peace and comfort of the landlord. Surely his peace and comfort is just as important as that of the tenants—it might be argued that it is of greater importance, because it is his property and his money. If it is illegal for the landlord to harass a tenant it is surely right that we should seek to deal with the reverse situation here.

Mr. J. Grimond: I have been following the debate with great interest. There are two points on which I should like clarification. As I understand it, many of the cases that have been quoted relate to harassment which has nothing to do with an attempt to restrain a landlord from pursuing a remedy. However, as the clause is drafted it would be effective only if that were the object.
The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis), who was most interesting, said that the cases to which he drew attention were designed to compel local authorities to take action. Other cases have been quoted in which there appears to be the general intention to annoy. Am I right in saying that the clause would not relate to those cases, as there would be no intention to cause the landlord to restrain from pursuing a remedy or pursuing a right? I understand that we have written into legislation a similar provision regarding the harassment of the tenant. Would not some of the cases that have been quoted be covered by the existing law on nuisance and on other matters which are already illegal?

Mr. Emery: I accept that there are doubts about certain aspects of nuisance. Again, we come to the difficult decision whether to prosecute a tenant on the ground of nuisance. Many times such a course has failed. It is a doubtful and dubious approach for a landlord to take. I have advised people to be careful about the expenses that they have been running up. So much depends on the judicial bench. To put the matter in commercial terms, the law is open-ended and rests very much on the way in which the case has been presented.
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether the clause would allow local authorities to take certain action. It is obvious that that is not its intention. As I understand it, the intention is not to bring the local authority into the matter but to allow the landlord to be able to prove harassment, the limitation of peace and comfort, or any action which would be likely to refrain the landlord from exercising any right. In those circumstances the landlord could go to court.
The hon. Member for Newham, North-West says that some of his constituents go to great lengths to get the local authority to act—namely, to rehouse them. I agree with him entirely. As the chairman of a housing committee I know that when people had an order made against them in these terms it was always necessary to consider whether they had gone out of their way to be evicted.
That is one of the easiest ways of jumping the queue in the housing waiting list. If a person can get himself evicted, particularly if he has young children, the local authority often has to take action to rehouse. There is a lot of difference between the person who has unfortunately been evicted and the person who has gone out of his way to seek eviction so as to jump the queue.
I want to know from the Government Front Bench whether it considers that new Clause 1 could take part of the action suggested in new Clause 5, in terms not of harassment but of being able to take possession. Secondly, is there any other legislation in which the comfort of the landlord is taken into account? If not, why should that not be done by this clause? I am not making a party political point: I am trying to balance the scales.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Gerard Fitt: Only on rare occasions have I attempted to take part in debates on legislation that is concerned with England, Scotland and Wales. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis) painted a clear picture of harassment against landlords. I have not been present either in the House or in Committee when the Bill has been debated, but has anyone instanced cases of harassment of tenants?
I know of one case which could be multiplied by many hundreds, if not


thousands. A young boy who lived in Belfast came to London at the beginning of the troubles and occupied a flat in the Kings Road area, in Oakley Street. The house is let out in 16 flats which are let to four couples and 12 single persons. The landlord does not live on the premises and, therefore, cannot be harassed. Since the announcement of this legislation, the landlords have taken every step they can to increase the rent or to evict the tenants before the legislation becomes law.
I should not mind if the landlord lived in London and was trying to make a small profit from a property that he had bought. For the five or six years he has been there, this boy from Belfast has been under pressure to pay more rent. He has taken the matter to rent tribunals and has won most of his cases. But since the Government announced their intention to bring in legislation to protect tenants from harassment by landlords every device has been used by the landlords to have the 16 tenants evicted or to make life so difficult for them that they would leave their accommodation and the property could be sold.
The young lad from Belfast does not earn much and he cannot afford a high rent, but he is no fool. When the pressure began he tried to discover the owners of the property. He found out that the leaseholder is a company called Hiroko Developments Limited, a Japanese company—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I have tried to allow the hon. Gentleman to make his case. I thought he might be telling an Irish story with an unexpected ending, but he is dealing with a different part of the Bill. We are dealing here with the harassment of landlords.

Mr. Fitt: In the case I am illustrating, who is the landlord? I contend that it is those who own the house, the people who collect the rents—in other words, a Japanese company. So far as the tenants are concerned, that company is the landlord. I contend that there is harassment against tenants, and I shall support the Government on this matter.

Mr. Rossi: I do not wish to dispute the facts with the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt), but since he was speaking about harassment of tenants, that matter is dealt with in other legislation.

Protection exists in the sense that if he complains to the local authority, the local authority after investigation of the facts can prosecute before the local magistrates and the landlords can be found guilty of harassment.

Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea prosecutions of landlords are so scarce as to be irrelevant in view of the sort of problem mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt). The only effective remedy available in the situation described by my hon. Friend is action by injunction.

Mr. Rossi: I can rely on the hon. Gentleman to make a party political point when we are discussing a serious matter. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Belfast, West reported the case to the local authority and, if so, what were the consequences. Perhaps that is a step the hon. Gentleman could take.

Mr. Fitt: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann) that the matter can only be pursued by way of an injunction. The young boy I mentioned from Belfast came to see me the day before yesterday and asked me whether he could borrow some money so that he could take out an injunction.

Mr. Rossi: I suggest that the young man could go to his local authority to seek protection against an act of harassment by his landlord with a view to prosecution in the magistrates' court. The new clause seeks to give that particular remedy—however ineffective it may have proved to be in the circumstances of some tenants—to landlords who are being harassed in their own homes. The clause in no way seeks to take away security from tenants, which is the main preoccupation of the Bill, nor does it seek to take away any protection from tenants. Indeed, it is the natural consequence of giving security and protection to tenants.
In earlier days a landlord had his own remedy against a tenant who behaved badly against him. The landlord could take action for possession. He could convict the tenant even under the common law. That was the landlord's remedy. However, Parliament has made that course no longer possible and, in turn,


has left landlords unprotected and without a real remedy. The clause suggests that where that situation is created by Parliament it is right and proper that the landlord be given a remedy and protection in his own home. In other words, whether it be a landlord in his own home or a tenant in his own home, he will have the protection of the law in respect of people who try to make conditions intolerable for him.
Therefore, in as much as Parliament has thought it right and fitting to give magistrates' courts the power to impose fines where a person wearing the label of "tenant" has his living conditions made intolerable by someone else, so we feel that the converse should be equally valid and that if a landlord is having his or his family's life made intolerable, his remedy should lie with the courts.
When we use the word "harassment", we are using a word to connote action of a reprehensible kind which I am sure no Government supporter would seek to defend. We say that where that conduct exists against anyone in his own home it is right that the courts should have the power to decide upon the matter, and that if a court finds the conduct of a person towards another in his own home intolerable or reprehensible, he will be fined whether he has the label of "landlord" or "tenant".
I hope that the Under-Secretary, having heard voices from all sides of the House urging him to accept the clause, will do so in no partisan or party political manner but from the point of view of wanting to give justice to people living in their own homes.
This has been an extremely interesting cross-party debate in which we have heard from hon. Members on both sides of the House and from the representatives of four parties. I listened with sympathy to the speeches of the Opposition hon. Members who support the clause. I listened with equal sympathy to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis). I visited his constituency today. I saw the problems which affect his constituents. I also saw the sterling and magnificent work being done by his local authority to try to deal with some of the problems.
I thought that the intervention most to the point was that of the right hon. Member

for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond). If the contentions advanced by the Opposition could not be dealt with in any other way and if they could be dealt with validly and efficiently by the clause, I for one would look upon it with a degree of benevolence. But, as I shall seek to illustrate, the clause will not cope with the problems about which we have heard in ways which I accept. There are other ways in which the problems can be dealt with.
The hon. and learned Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies) will be the first to agree, I am sure, that before a new offence is added to the criminal law it is important that a good case for doing so should be made out and that care should be taken to ensure that the mischief concerned is not already dealt with by criminal or civil remedies.
The "right" or "remedy" in respect of the premises envisaged by the new clause is presumably an application to the rent officer in the rent tribunal for the fixing of a higher rent, an application to the rent tribunal to reduce a period of security of tenure or to the county court for an order for possesion. If the tenant and the landlord do not occupy dwellings forming part of the same premises, it is difficult to see what acts the tenant could commit which would interfere with the peace or comfort of the landlord which would not already be a criminal offence, or at any rate they would constitute grounds for the landlord applying to the magistrates' court to have the tenant bound over to keep the peace.
9.45 p.m.
The harassment provisions in the 1965 Rent Act were enacted primarily to deal with cases where a landlord tried to drive tenants out, for example, by changing locks on doors, by making a lot of noise or otherwise making life unbearable for the tenant when the parties share the same premises.
I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman will accept that I am not in any way seeking to ridicule the case that he put forward. I think that he will also accept that, for example, changing locks cannot be done by tenants to harass landlords. Where a landlord and tenant share premises, the tenant will be driving nails in his own coffin if he creates a disturbance since he will be giving the


landlord a ground for claiming possession in the case of a furnished tenancy or for asking for a reduction in a period of security of tenure in the case of a furnished letting; namely, that he is being a nuisance and an annoyance to adjoining occupiers. The courts have held that when landlord and tenant share premises the landlord counts as an adjoining occupier for this purpose.
The Government do not think that it has been sufficiently established that harassment of landlords by tenants would be a worthwhile addition to the criminal law. However, I have been impressed by the arguments that have been put forward. While we believe that tenants require protection, we do not contend that no tenant ever behaves badly towards a landlord. Some landlords are vulnerable—even the widows described by the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain). The position will be kept under surveillance and legislation will be brought forward if evidence of abuse by tenants of their position vis-à-vis landlords comes to light in greater quantities.

Mr. Rees-Davies: The Government have the evidence in considerable quantity from the Francis Committee, which reported in 1971 and in terms said and made the recommendation not only of the law but in the words contained in the new clause.
Whilst I recognise that inside the house the landlord may be the occupier with a tenant and thus can take a civil action for nuisance, he cannot take a criminal action as the tenant can. He may merely want to keep him in order and to do so by taking a criminal action. Therefore, why should he be differentiated from the case of the tenant?
It is no use asking the landlord who is not a co-occupier to get the tenant bound over to keep the peace. Anybody can do that. It is quite valueless. But if the elderly lady goes to collect her rent and is treated to the most disgraceful abuse and is not allowed in or her builder is not allowed in to undertake maintenance or repairs, she can go against the tenant for a new criminal offence of harassment. Those are the three relevant points that the hon. Gentleman has not answered.

Mr. Kaufman: In Committee we discussed the fact that people do behave strangely. A tenant who sought to harass his landlord by failing to admit people to carry out necessary repairs and maintenance would be a bizarre tenant, even by the many standards that have been advanced. I will not quarrel with the hon. and learned Gentleman on this matter because people do behave strangely. However, he has put a point of view which contains some validity and is an argument for further consideration of the matter.

Mr. Emery: In another place?

Mr. Kaufman: I hope that the hon. Gentleman, who has held ministerial office, will not himself become slightly bizarre. It would be false and misleading of me to suggest that we will do it on this Bill in this Session, which has only a short time to run. But I undertake that we will keep this matter under surveillance. It is conceivable that hon. Members will do so too.
We shall not neglect this matter, but even if we were to adopt the slightly revolutionary proposal of the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) and take action in another place tomorrow, we could not do so on the basis of the new clause, which is unsatisfactory in a number of respects.
For example, the clause would make a single act an offence, which is not the case in harassment of tenants. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard) would like a single act to be an offence in that respect to deal with the winkling which he deplores, but that is not the case. It is difficult to see how such a provision could be made to work, particularly as it would be for the landlord who claimed harassment to prove that the single act was committed with the intent of making him refrain from exercising any right or pursuing any remedy in respect of the premises or part of them.
It is true that many activities, like playing loud music late at night or obstructing stairs and passage ways, if repeated often enough, may be calculated to interfere with another person's peace or comfort, but a single occurrence can hardly be said to be harassment.
Also, it is far from clear whether an act of harassment under the clause would include an act designed to deter a landlord from collecting rents due to him under a tenancy agreement, since that is not a right in respect of premises but a right in respect of the landlord-tenant relationship. Any provision calculated to protect landlords from harassment should include some provision in that respect.
The penalty provisions of the clause are not in line with those for harassment of tenants, which are a fine of up to £400 or six months imprisonment on summary conviction and, on indictment, an unlimited fine or a term of imprisonment not exceeding two years. That seems odd, if the intention is to place landlord and tenant on the same footing. In that sense, the penalties should clearly be in line.
In view of what I have said, I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will not feel it necessary to press the clause. I have listened with sympathy to all the human cases put forward and certainly will not dismiss them with derision. Some can be dealt with under the existing law, but if that turns out to be unsatisfactory, I undertake that we shall keep the matter under surveillance.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Because of shortness of time, I did not develop my theme, but my local authority had a lot of this trouble and subsequently introduced a byelaw and appointed harassment officers. Could my hon. Friend investigate this system and perhaps circulate local authorities advising them that this can be done?

Mr. Kaufman: I will certainly consider that suggestion. My hon. Friend's borough is a pioneer in many ways.
For the reasons that I have put for ward, however, I hope that hon. Members will not press this clause. We do not reject it out of lack of sympathy. We just do not believe that it would work.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: I have listened with interest to the honeyed words of the Under-Secretary of State, who has spoken about having the matter "under surveillance", having "a great deal of sympathy", and this being "not a matter which we shall neglect". In the end, however, the hon. Gentleman has come up with nothing.
I ought to declare an interest. I am the landlord of one very small property, which cannot be said to be flourishing. As a result, it is up for sale. If hon. Members would make me an offer, I am sure that without too much pressure I would accept it.
I should have thought that this was a most moderate proposal, at a time when moderation ought to appeal to the Government side of the House. After all, the equity of giving the same right to a landlord as is given to a tenant is, I should have thought, an absolutely obvious one to all hon. Members.
The Under-Secretary said that there was not sufficient evidence about it. But these seemed to be sufficient evidence for Francis in 1971. Not only was it a recommendation of the majority, but the minority report with Francis did not see fit to object to it in any way. The evidence appears to have come, according to page 111 of the Francis Report, mainly or predominantly from the National Citizens' Advice Bureaux Council. These are not the sort of people who can afford to go to solicitors. These are the sort of people who come from quite lowly walks of life or have quite lowly incomes and who attend meetings of this sort of organisation. They seem to have presented substantial and cogent enough evidence for Francis in 1971 to recommend that it should be made an offence for
any person with intent to cause the landlord of any premises to refrain from exercising any right or pursuing any remedy in respect of the premises or part thereof to do acts calculated to interfere with the peace or comfort of the landlord or members of his household.
I have taken the time to re-read that because the Under-Secretary has taken issue with the wording of our clause. But the wording of the clause is pure Francis. Furthermore, the Under-Secretary has said that the wording implies the doing of only one act and that that would be rather unfair or inappropriate. But it is the same wording that applies to landlords where the word used is "harassment" But the detail of the wording is not used in the Rent Act 1965 which Labour hon. Members, when previously in Government, saw fit to introduce. There cannot, therefore, be any criticism about the wording because, in one regard, it is straight out of Francis


and in another regard it is straight out of the 1965 Act.
The Under-Secretary says that there is a distinction between the position of a landlord and the position of a tenant. In my respectful submission, that is a distinction with no difference. Although it is perfectly true that someone who is a landlord can take a lock off a door, and that that is a specific act, there are all sorts of acts that a tenant can do to terrify or frighten a landlord, particularly an elderly woman who has been left premises by her husband in the sort of situation which Members of Parliament all know well.
The point is not that the act itself should be something specific to which to draw attention. The act is just evidence of an effect it has upon the other person. It does not matter what the precise act is so long as it has the affect of either bringing the tenant into fear, which is covered by the 1965 Act, or bringing the landlord into fear, which is covered by the clause.
Furthermore, it is by no accidental process that a tenant may end up in a court of law, for a number of reasons—first, because a good tenant is something for which a landlord very much hopes, and the landlord will not take any steps to end a good tenancy. More important, as a fact of legal practice the landlord will go to the trouble of taking a tenant to court only if he can prove—

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Trade Union and Labour Relations Bill, the Rent Bill (Lords), the Motion relating to Parliamentary Expenses, the Insurance Companies Bill (Lords) and the Consideration of any other Lords Amendments may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Coleman.]

RENT BILL [LORDS]

Question again proposed. That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Lawrence: The point at which a landlord would take a tenant to a magistrates' court would be when he could prove, or was advised by his lawyer that he could prove, the specific intent to do the series of acts which is set out in the clause. The mens rea involves a very high degree of proof. There is no question of an order being made against a tenant who has slipped up only once. All the magistrates that I know in London would make short shrift of such a prosecution.
I can see no basis for any of the arguments which have been advanced by the Under-Secretary to justify not doing something which it is patently obvious to hon. Members, to those who man citizens' advice bureaux and to the Francis Committee should be done.
Francis reported in 1971. Much water has flowed under the bridge since then. For example, there has been a drying up of rented accommodation. As a result, there has been a channelling into furnished accommodation, particularly of young people who cannot get on to a council housing list and cannot buy a house of their own.
A phenomenon which is currently much to be observed is the generation gap where young people become more and more frustrated and older people try to hang on to property for which they have saved all their lives. Increasingly there is likely to be conflict between landlord and tenant.
In the short time that I have been in Parliament I cannot say that I have had the satisfaction of knowing that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis), or West Ham as perhaps he would prefer to have it known, has been on my side. In this debate the hon. Gentleman made fair to become the landlord's friend. He pointed to something which all of us know is happening. Tenants realise that by causing trouble in their accommodation they can prevail upon their landlord to serve a notice to quit and then they can seek alternative accommodation from the local authority.
These are reasons why the evidence which was sufficiently adequate to convince Francis is even more adequate three years later. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) asked whether there was much point in this clause. There is a difference between the ordinary remedy available in the civil law and that which we propose, which is criminal. The difference between these two kinds of remedy is the difference that existed in 1965 when the Labour Government saw fit to introduce a special criminal remedy under the Rent Act to prevent harassment of tenants by landlords. The Opposition did not expect anything would be done, although we accept the assurances given by the Minister that he has a good deal of sympathy. The Government's refusal to accede to this clause underlines their

whole attitude to the Bill. From start to finish it has been that the landlord is always, or nearly always, wrong and the tenant is always, or nearly always, right. With the best will in the world I can see no other reason, other than the desire to perpetuate that for the purpose of the political campaign which will shortly be coming, why they should seek to resist this most moderate clause.
Unfortunately, we cannot rely on the support of the Liberals and there would, therefore, not be much point in pressing this matter to a division. I therefore conclude that we are thrown on to the good will of the Government, and I hope that they will show their good will even at this late stage, by accepting the clause or the principle of it.

Question put and negatived.

New Clause 6

WINTER LETTINGS

'Where the landlord lets accommodation between 1st October and 1st May in any year being accommodation for holiday letting during the period between 1st May and 1st October and at the time of the letting the tenant is notified in writing that the landlord would require possession at the termination of the letting for the purpose of holiday letting such tenancy shall not come within the provisions of this Act'.—[Mr. Rees-Davies.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Rees-Davies: I beg to move, that the clause be read a Second time.
This is an important matter for the seaside resorts and any other parts of the country which engage in substantial holiday letting in the summer months. When the Bill was first published it sought to exclude holiday lettings, but there was no provision about the important question of the winter months. Now, as a result of the amendments made in another place and in Committee, we have a new clause which goes some way towards helping the situation over winter lettings.
The clause sets the position out clearly and far better than amendments which have already been discussed. In cases where the landlord lets accommodation between 1st October and 1st May in any year—the out-of-season period—it being accommodation for holiday letting during the period between 1st May and 1st October, and at the time of the letting the tenant is notified in writing that the landlord requires possession at the termination of the winter letting for the purpose of holiday letting, such tenancy shall not come within the provisions of the Act.
I should like to explain the important situation in constituencies such as mine and the whole of the south coast. Indeed, all the way round the coast there is the same situation. Hardly any of us needs the Bill, or any part of it. We might support certain parts of it in stress areas for the sake of others in the cities, but for us it is of little or no use, and can be extremely harmful.
In my constituency and many others there is a large and increasing amount of accommodation for holiday letting, pretty

well from 1st May to the end of September. Apart from hotels and boarding houses, which do not come under the Bill, it comprises summer flatlets and sometimes parts of houses in which the owner-occupier lives. More often than not the owners have two or three houses and live in part of one. Purpose-built holiday flatlets are very much on the increase. They are specifically designed for the new market of the travelling tourist who wants to stay for a week or a fortnight, but seldom longer.
It is true that holiday lettings are exempted from the operation of the Bill during those periods and can continue to be let freely, but the owners want to be able to let them in the winter months, and we want the accommodation to be used then. In some instances the accommodation can be let in the winter for a diverse range of uses at much reduced rents. It is let, for example, to people who come here to study English. In the Isle of Thanet we have quite a large number of schools which teach foreigners English. Much of the accommodation is let to hon. Members, perhaps when they attend their party conferences. When they attend the Labour Party conference at Margate they do not necessarily stay in hotels, but may stay in holiday flatlets.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Our party is so enormous now that we could never exist in Margate. We can find only one place big enough for our conferences.

Mr. Rees-Davies: The hon. Gentleman does not need to worry, because after the next General Election the Labour Party will be able to be contained within Margate quite easily.
I should like to give the example of a Mr. Edwards, who has a number of purpose-built flatlet blocks—30 to 40 in three blocks. In the winter he lets them to various classes of people. Many nurses who work in Thanet stay at low rentals in the accommodation in the winter and go back to their hospital accommodation in the summer. Professional people, people working in the colleges in the area, and so on, also take up the accommodation. Mr. Edwards also accommodates a number of foreigners in the winter.
What we want to be absolutely sure of is that anyone who wants to go in for


holiday lettings in the summer will not find himself, as a result of doing a winter let, deprived of the opportunity to do so. The problem is separate from the student problem, with which we shall deal later. We want to be sure that we shall not find ourselves divested of this class of accommodation through any fault of this measure. Of course, it has been substantially amended. An example is Case 10B in Clause 3. That is an amendment which was pressed upon the Government and accepted by them. It refers to the case
Where the dwelling-house is let under a tenancy for a term of years certain not exceeding 8 months …".
That is a fixed period, which would cover my point, because eight months would extend from October to May. Case 10B continues:
not later than the relevant date the landlord gave notice in writing to the tenant that possession might be recovered under this Case …".
That would be acceptable subject to the Minister indicating what he means by the words "relevant date" so that we understand it. Then we come to the difficult part—namely:
and the dwelling-house was, at some time within the period of 12 months ending on the relevant date, occupied under a right to occupy it for a holiday.
10.15 p.m.
As I understand it, that is the past. We do not want the past. We want to ensure that if in future a person engages in holiday lettings in the summer he will be free to let the property during the winter months. Therefore, Case 10B does not go as far as we would wish so as to cover the position that we need in the seaside resorts and in the areas in which holiday lettings regularly take place. Case 10B continues:
a tenancy shall be treated as being for a term of years certain notwithstanding that it is liable to determination by re-entry or on the happening of any event other than the giving of notice by the landlord to determine the term.
In a sentence that covers the position when the period is not, for example, six or eight months but a lesser period.
It seems that the new clause—this is why it was tabled—is simpler and, I venture to submit, better than the amendments which have so far been tabled by the Government. I do not put it forward as being a perfect type of new clause. We have tabled it because we are anxious to

ensure that those of us who represent important tourist areas do not find ourselves in difficulty with tourism, which is an immensely important part of Britain's industry.
There is also the human side. I can assure the Minister that there is a great deal of genuine worry by people who have invested in this type of property. Often they have done so on retirement from industrial areas. They want to feel that they will not find themselves in difficulty if they go ahead and continue with their lettings. Now is the time when they are making their arrangements for the forthcoming winter to engage in their normal lettings. It is no good coming back in October and saying, "We have made a mistake." The Government must get the matter right now.
It is a desperate pity that the Government rushed us through the Bill. They drove us into what was a record, and I was not one of the Members who wanted to achieve it. It was no pleasure to me, and it probably was not for other Members who served on the Committee, to sit 28 hours in Committee from 10.30 am one day to 1 pm the next day. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) may have been worse off than I was. He kept quiet throughout the whole of the 28 hours. He was clearly ordered to do so by the Whips. I was trying to understand the confusion, the complexity and the general bad drafting of the Bill. I do not blame the parliamentary draftsmen for the absence of instructions that they received. I was on my feet during 18 or 20 debates representing several hours of debate. All the time I was trying to probe and trying to understand the complexities of this measure.
We are still not satisfied that we have reached the end of the road on this very important point. The Minister must not make a mistake, because all hell will be let loose if we find that we cannot get accommodation back for seaside resorts next spring.

Mr. Emery: The closer one gets to the South-West, the better is the winter weather. In Sidmouth and Budleigh Salterton, in my constituency, the business is mainly that of summer letting, but be-because of the good winter weather businesses are willing to let during the winter at greatly reduced rentals. The


tenants are mainly elderly couples who want the more equable climate of the South-West in the winter months.
If there is a chance that the business person running holiday accomodation will be unable to regain possession for the holiday season, such property will simply not come on to the market in winter. It is the elderly who will suffer in the main. I cannot believe that the Minister wants that to happen.
Another factor brought to my notice by associations in the tourist industry is that they have co-operated with local authorities in finding winter accommodation for difficult and harsh housing cases in emergency situations. It has always been understood that on the agreed date there would be vacant possession. I know of a number of local authorities which in the last 12 months have advised tenants, because of the possibility of security of tenure, not to vacate on the agreed date. I will provide the Minister with chapter and verse of local authorities which have done this. Whatever he may say about the new clause tonight, I hope that he will say that he could not and would not support any local authority which acted in that way.
We are not talking about the ordinary stock of housing accommodation, but about part of the wherewithal of the tourist industry, which is very necessary at that time. The Government are encouraging people to take holidays in the United Kingdom rather than use foreign currency. More and more families with small children want this sort of accommodation rather than to go to a hotel, which they often cannot afford. They want to be able to provide their own catering facilities for their holiday. This sort of accommodation is greatly needed.
It would be an excellent thing for any Government and any Minister if we could use this type of accommodation to help out with the housing need in the winter. To achieve this it will be necessary to ensure that the tourist industry is able to gain possession of these dwellings for the purpose for which they were provided—that is, for the benefit of the tourist industry and the people who are running them as summer holiday lettings.
The Government have gone some way in ensuring that summer letting does not

go on for ever, but they have not taken action the other way round and therefore the clause is of considerable benefit.

Sir John Eden: I fully support the case put forward by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies) which has been illustrated in the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery). I confirm that this matter is causing growing concern in constituencies which have a substantial amount of holiday accommodation. Among those who take advantage of lower rates available during winter lettings are young couples with families who have been unable to find alternative accommodation and who are on the look out for bases from which to continue their search for suitable, permanent homes. They enter into agreements with the owners of the tourist accommodation businesses. They know before they take possession of the accommodation that it will be required, and that it has already been committed to other people from a fixed date. They know full well that their occupancy of the premises, at a privileged rate, is for a limited period, and they agree to quit at the end of this.
It is right that we should seek to ensure that provision is made in the Bill for such cases. Earlier, in reply to an observation from me, the Minister said that Case 10 B would meet this matter completely. I hope that he will underline that assurance, because it will go a considerable way towards easing the anxieties of people who have problems.
There is particular concern about the time taken to regain possession of some of this holiday accommodation. Owners of this accommodation wish to regain possession of it so as to go ahead with summer lettings—that is what they are in business for. But often it takes so many months to regain possession that the bulk, if not the entire period, of the summer letting season has gone by and the owners miss the period during which they can obtain full summer holiday letting rates.
The Minister has two points to answer. The first is on the extent to which the owner of the business is able to regain possession in the event of a man's defaulting on the agreement he has entered into with the owner. The second is the question whether there is any measure, short of the owner having to go to the county


court to gain possession, which would enable him to get possession quickly so that he can take advantage of the summer letting at high rates and also honour the commitment he has made to the family or individual who has planned his summer holidays on the assumption that he would have the premises made available to him. I hope that the Minister will give sympathetic consideration to this.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Joseph Dean: I wish to take the hon. and learned Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies) to task. He tried to convey the impression that the most important housing need was in areas such as his constituency. If we were to divide the country into areas of housing need and housing stress it would be seen that nearly 50 per cent. of the population which is in need does not live in areas such as the Thanet. The hon. and learned Member has grossly overstated his case.
We heard talk of sunshine areas. From my experience of housing I can say that this Bill is not designed to protect those in sunshine areas; rather it is to protect those who are in areas of great housing stress. Many people have waited a long time for such a Bill. I do not think that we should give top priority to small hoteliers and boarding-housekeepers in small resorts.

Mr. Freeson: In this aspect of housing I can think of only one kind of situation where there might be difficulties. That would arise when a person in, say, a seaside town who had not previously let any part of his accommodation decided to let it for holiday lettings. His premises might be available at some time during what we broadly call the non-holiday months, but he might feel that he would like to let them immediately for non-holiday purposes, prior to a holiday letting.
In such a case I can see that there might be difficulties. It is a marginal element. It could arise, but in practice the position will be that the majority of lettings will involve accommodation which has already been used for holiday purposes for some years. These have been the subject of most of the comments. There will be some instances when people will want to stay on too late to use the letting for hodiday purposes. The vast majority of what will be a minority

of cases are likely to start lettings at the beginning of the holiday season. Where lettings are already part of the market they are covered by Case 10B, provided that the appropriate notification is given.
I am concerned to allay some of the anxieties expressed in Committee—anxieties which may have been exacerbated by those discussions. There may be a sense of anxiety among people who are not aware of the true position. The vast majority of people now coming into lettings in holiday areas—if those lettings are at the beginning of the season, and let for holiday purposes—are covered by Case 10B. Existing holiday lettings are covered. The only area in which there may be uncertainty is in the case of somebody who let, say, in December for an ordinary short-term letting but who wants that accommodation to be available for summer letting. One must seek to cover by legislation every aspect that might arise. We are doing our best effectively to cover virtually 100 per cent. of the cases that will arise.

Mr. Emery: Will the Minister make clear that the security goes with the house and not with the owner of the holiday business?

Mr. Freeson: It follows the landlord and tenant relationship and not who the landlord might or might not be at a particular point in time. This provides for the landlord, whoever it may be, to give notice in writing to the tenant, in terms of possession, under the case at the relevant date.
I was asked what was meant by relevant date "The relevant date is in Part III of Schedule 3 to the 1968 Act, as amended by paragraph 6, Schedule 1 of the Bill. That means, in the cage of a tenancy subsisting at commencement date, a date six months after commencement. In all other cases it means at the start of the tenancy. I hope that that puts the matter clearly on record, since there may have been some confusion in Committee.
I turn to the point made by the right hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden) about the need for speedy court action. I am advised—I understand this to have been the position in the past—that expedited procedures are available through the courts where the need is urgent. Where these procedures are approved and used, I am advised that a


hearing is arranged, on average, 16 to 18 days from the date of application. Obviously these again will be marginal cases. It is to be expected that people will be law-abiding, both landlords and tenants, and that these circumstances will arise in only a few cases. In urgent cases—for example, in seaside situations—the average experience would be 16 to 18 days, sometimes more and sometimes less.

Mr. Rees-Davies: I have two questions. First, am I right about the relevant date? Can we tell those who have this accommodation which they wish to let this winter that they must give notice in writing within six months of the passing of this legislation?

Mr. Freeson: Yes, when there is a tenancy existing at the time that this measure comes into operation.

Mr. Rees-Davies: In other words, those who are letting at the moment—nearly all have holiday lets on now—and wish to let in the winter must give notice within six months to the winter tenants that they wish to re-occupy in the summer?

Mr. Freeson: The hon. and learned Gentleman has in mind a situation where there is an existing summer letting, and he wants to know what is needed to deal with a winter letting when there is a subsequent summer letting. In other words, we are talking about a period half-way through a summer letting with a view to a summer letting in a year's time following a winter letting. I am not altogether clear what is worrying the hon. and learned Gentleman. His question assumes that there will be switches of tenants. We are concerned to ensure that, where necessary, the tenants know when they are due to go out. If they do not comply with the agreement and with the notification which they have been given, there is the urgent procedure.

Mr. Rees-Davies: My other question goes to the heart of the clause. Case 10B has had inserted the following words:
… that the dwelling was at some time within the period of 12 months ending on the relevant date occupied under a right.
Why did the Minister introduce those words? Could not they be left out?

Mr. Freeson: I was about to come to that. The hon. and learned Gentleman is moving back on to the ground about which he argued at length in Committee on another amendment. He said that if at any time in the past a property had been used for holiday purposes, it would be deemed to fall within this category. We did not find that acceptable then, and we do not now. It is far too open-ended.
The new Case 10B is designed to be clear and certain in its operation. It is for that reason that its operation turns upon the question whether the dwelling was during the previous 12 months occupied for holiday purposes rather than looking forward to the landlord's intention of future letting. In the Opposition's clause, it is not clear whether the words
being accommodation for holiday letting
mean being accommodation normally used for holiday letting or accommodation which has been prospectively let for holiday purposes in the succeeding 1st May to 1st October period. As a third possibility, the words might mean accommodation which the landlord simply intended to let. The imprecision of the Opposition clause fortifies the Government in their view that their own provision is the better one.
10.45 p.m.
There are further differences on which I could comment. First, the clause relates specifically to lettings made between certain calendar months. In this difference it must be said that the hon. and learned Member for Thanet, West has had little regard for the encouragement of the winter sports industry in Scotland, which certainly does not flourish between 1st May and 1st October. The clause would deprive Scottish holiday landlords of any means of recovering possession under their out-of-season summer lettings. The clause also assumes a five-month holiday letting period, which may not suit in all circumstances. In the Bill we are speaking of an eight-months period.
Secondly, I suspect that the main reason for the introduction of the clause is that the hon. and learned Gentleman is trying to get away from the requirement that the accommodation must have been occupied for a holiday within the


preceding 12 months. Instead, the requirement is that it must be "accommodation for letting" between certain months.
Depending on the interpretation that the court puts on these words, this might ease the problems of, for instance, the holiday landlady who is setting up for the first time—the marginal point that I made before—or the one who has taken a year or two years off from business. But I must point out that such a landlady might, even under these provisions, find it difficult to satisfy a court that the accommodation was for holiday letting and that therefore the winter tenancy was not protected.
I could make a number of other points. My main concern has been to establish as clearly as possible the position under Case 10B and to make the point that what we have put forward covers all but the most marginal possibilities. We have covered the position of holiday lettings clearly and distinctly. To introduce an open-ended position, such as the hon. and learned Gentleman put forward, as he did on a number of occasions in Committee, would be to erode the whole point of the legislation generally and to achieve little in practice for the tourist and holiday trade in the resorts to which reference has been made and about which, rightly, hon. Gentlemen seek reassurance for their constituents.

Mr. Sainsbury: I am sure that the appearance of Case 10B in the Bill, as amended, is a great reassurance to all who represent constituencies where there are holiday lettings.
I do not wish to enter into an argument with my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) whether the weather in his constituency is better in the winter than in Hove. I am sure that the air is equally healthy in both places.
There is a genuine problem here. I am grateful to the Minister not only for Case 10B being included in the Bill, but for what he said in reply to the debate and for his assurances. I hope that they will be given as much publicity as possible in the area where these matters are of great concern.
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman recognised, although he called it pretty marginal, that where a dwelling was not previously let there might be a difficulty. This is a difficulty of which we must be aware. I accept that it does not immediately affect a large number of holiday lettings, but the potential difficulty increases the longer this legislation remains on the statute book.
Another potential source of difficulty that the Minister may care to consider arises when alterations are carried out to dwelling houses, the subject of holiday lettings, which might have the effect of changing the previous state of those dwelling houses into a new state which would be held to be not previously let because they did not exist in that form. I have in mind the case where two dwelling houses are knocked into one and the new holiday letting is for larger accommodation or, perhaps some other alterations of a like nature are carried out. Both these cases, though concerned with property not previously let and where alterations are carried out, seem to be potentially difficult, and the difficulty increases the longer the legislation remains on the statute book.
I hope that all those who read our debates and normally make holiday lettings will make every effort to ensure that during this holiday season they achieve a letting and therefore secure the protection for winter lettings, because if for any reason they do not let this summer, the following winter letting may be at risk. This matter needs considerable publicity, and I hope that it will get it.
In the light of the assurances given by the Minister, and in the hope—indeed, the expectation—that it will not be very long before further legislation on this subject will be required and that when that legislation is introduced the difficulty which the Minister has recognised and to which I have referred will be dealt with satisfactorily, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the new clause.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member cannot withdraw the motion; it must be withdrawn by the hon. and learned Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies).

Mr. Rees-Davies: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 10

TERMINATION OF EXISTING FIXED TERM TENANCIES

'A tenancy or right of occupation subject to Part VI of the Rent Act 1968 or Part VII of the Rent (Scotland) Act 1971 existing at the commencement of this Act or which was so subject immediately prior to the commencement of this Act may be terminated by a notice to quit, served upon the tenant, requiring him to deliver up possession of the dwellinghouse the subject of the tenancy on a date which is—

(a) not less than six months after the service of the notice upon the tenant and
(b) at or after the end of the fixed term of the tenancy'.—[Mr. Graham Page.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this we are to take new Clause 16—Court order to convert furnished to unfurnished tenancy—
'A tenancy which is in existence at the commencement of this Act and which remains a Part VI contract (in England or Wales) or a Part VII contract (in Scotland) shall not become a protected tenancy except by an order of the court'.

Mr. Page: The Minister and the Under-Secretary of State will be pleased to hear that I do not intend to return to the old argument that if the clause is accepted there will be greater availability of property to let. This is purely and simply common justice to those who will be hit by the Bill, and I am asking the Government to consider it from that point of view. If people have entered into a contract, be it a contract for furnished or unfurnished lettings, in accordance with the law, it is only fair that when the law is changed they should be entitled to some recognition of that contract.
The clause relates to a tenancy that is subject to Part 6 of the Rent Act, or Part 7 of the Rent (Scotland) Act; that is to say, furnished letting on a fixed term at the time that the Bill takes effect. In that case, the clause would allow the landlord to terminate the tenancy by six months' notice. If the fixed term came to an end within six months of the Bill's commencing, it would have to be six months' notice terminating after the end of the fixed term. If the fixed term came to art end at some time later than six

months after the commencement of the Bill, the six months' notice must end at or after the end of that fixed term.
That is the machinery of the clause, the principle being to recognise that a contract was entered into on the terms of the law as it exists now. The law will be changed by the Bill to the disadvantage of the landlord by creating a security of tenure in the tenant that did not exist when the contract was entered into, and it is only right to allow the landlord, in those circumstances, to terminate the tenancy on reasonable notice to the tenant concerned.
New Clause 16 is on rather a different point. In Committee we talked on a number of occasions about the case of Woodward and Docherty. The effect of the judgment in that case on future cases will be that it will be possible for a dwelling that is fully furnished, with all the furniture necessary for living in the dwelling as a furnished dwelling, which may have been let as a furnished dwelling and be in law a furnished dwelling, after a period of time and by a formula of depreciation of the furniture, to become an unfurnished dwelling because the payment for the furniture is not a substantial part of the rent.
Let me use the example of Woodward and Docherty, where the court found that the furniture was worth—using round figures—£100 and that it should be depreciated by £20 a year over five years. It is quite possible, therefore, that although one lets property as furnished property it can become unfurnished and different rules of law will apply if it is let when the Bill becomes an Act in ascertaining the rent of each.
New Clause 16 seeks to make some definite point at which, in such a case, a tenancy changes from furnished to an unfurnished tenancy and to say that it can only change in that way by an order of the court.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would not wish to mislead the House, but he must be aware that the test as to whether a tenancy is furnished or unfurnished depends on the value of the furniture or the proportion at the commencement of the tenancy and that it will not change during the currency of the tenancy. The test is at the beginning of the tenancy.

Mr. Page: That is exactly the test which was not applied in Woodward and Docherty.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: Nonsense.

Mr. Page: It was not. The court said that the furniture was devalued over a period of time, so that a furnished letting which started out as a furnished letting could become an unfurnished letting. That was the basis of the decision in Woodward and Docherty.
I want to bring a definiteness into the relationship between landlord and tenant. The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but I have a transcript of the Woodward and Docherty case and I have read it carefully. I have read into it that principle.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: I do not wish to prolong the debate, because it appears that it is becoming unnecessarily prolonged. However, the right hon. Gentleman must know that the court takes the test of depreciating the furniture by 20 per cent. per annum. It allows the landlord a return of 20 per cent. per annum on the furniture and that is the proportion of the rent attributable to furniture on which the court bases the test. The court is not depreciating the furniture over five years and then saying that it is worth nothing. The test is made at the beginning of the tenancy. This is basic law, and it was confirmed by Woodward and Docherty.

Mr. Page: I suppose that the hon. Gentleman has read the transcript of the judgment, as I have. That is not what it says. It introduced into the law a new principle that what starts as a furnished letting can become unfurnished by the automatic depreciation of the furniture over a period of time. Therefore, only the court can say that this has taken place, otherwise there will be complete vagueness between the landlord and tenant as to whether it is a furnished or an unfurnished dwelling. This is only important when the tenancy is existing when the Bill becomes an Act.
As from the date of enactment, any furnished letting would be a protected tenancy and be subjected as for the assessment of rent to the fair rent principles rather than the reasonable rent which at present applies to furnished lettings.

Therefore, it is not of vital importance to tenancies created after the commencement of the Bill when enacted, but it is of importance to tenancies in existence at the commencement of the operation of the Bill when enacted. That is why new Clause 16 would apply only to tenancies in existence at the commencement of the Bill when enacted.
11.0 p.m.
This is, perhaps, a technical point, but it will affect a number of existing lettings. That is why it should be provided for in the Bill.
New Clause 10 deals with existing lettings, lettings at the commencement of the operation of the Bill when enacted. It deals with those fairly as between landlord and tenant and says that the landlord shall not be wholly deprived of the rights he had when he entered into the contract that was binding before the law was changed.

Mr. Freeson: I am baffled as to the purpose of New Clause 16. It appears that it is designed to prevent a tenancy which does not become protected on the commencement date from becoming protected at a subsequent date unless a court makes an order that it should. As a result of the passage of the Bill, it could be concerned only with tenancies having resident landlords, because after the passage of the Bill they would be the only ones which would remain Part VI contracts. Those tenancies which are at present such contracts and which will not become protected on the commencement date are tenancies which do not fulfil the requirements for protection set out in Part I of the Rent Act—because, for example, they are tenancies under which payment is made for board or attendance—tenancies granted by an exempted body such as a housing association or a local authority, or tenancies granted by a resident landlord which are to be excluded from becoming protected tenancies by virtue of paragraphs 1 and 1(a) of Schedule 3.
It is difficult to understand why the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) tabled the clause, which would prevent such tenancies from becoming automatically protected in future if and when the circumstances of the tenancy change so as to bring it within the protection of


Part I—that means in the main if the resident landlord moves and some other letting takes place or the whole house becomes available to what until then has been a Part VI tenant and the person becomes a protected tenant by virtue of the absentee landlord situation.
It may be that the right lion. Gentleman is concerned about the possibility that some resident landlord would unwittingly fail to satisfy the residence requirement at some point in time and so bring a tenancy in the building in which he has been living into protection. Only the court can determine in the last resort whether a landlord has failed to fulfil the residence requirements and whether, as a result, the tenancy has become a protected one. If there is any doubt, it is already open to landlord or tenant to apply to the court under Section 105 of the 1968 Act—Section 122 of the 1971 Scottish Act—for a determination. This power could equally be used by a landlord or tenant under any of the other tenancies which do not become protected on the commencement date to obtain a determination at any time on whether the tenancy is or has become a protected tenancy by virtue of a change in circumstances.
The procedure already exists in the main Act. It is not obligatory on the landlord or the tenant to apply for a determination, and I find it difficult to see why it should be obligatory. There may be cases where the landlord and the tenant accept without dispute that the tenancy has become protected in those cases there is no need for the formality of an application to the court. What is important, and what is already provided, is that there should be a power for the court to determine whether or not a tenancy is a protected tenancy at any particular time, and under whatever circumstances, when there is a dispute between landlord and tenant. In other words, the point which the right hon. Gentleman put forward is already covered in the existing main Act to which the Bill will relate.
I now turn to new Clause 10—a clause which appears to be intended to allow the lessor, under a furnished fixed-term contract, to terminate that contract by a notice to quit, giving not less than six months' notice which expires on or after the end of the fixed term. I leave aside

the fact that, as drafted, it would not necessarily produce the results which the right hon. Gentleman has in mind, although I could go over that ground if need be.
I am concerned with the main purpose of the new Clause. What the right hon. Gentleman has in mind is to seek a method of allowing landlords of furnished accommodation to recover possession, notwithstanding the provisions of the Bill so far as they affect the position of fixed term tenancies. In the past many landlords have chosen to let on fixed-term contracts as a way out of the governance of the Rent Act 1968. I do not say that all landlords have done so, but many have been using fixed-term contracts solely to avoid giving their tenants the minimum protection under Part VII of the Rent Act. I have personal experience of this, as, no doubt, have other hon. Members. It would be iniquitous to allow such landlords to gain possession of properties which are currently let to people who desperately need to stay in their homes. Such a move would wreck the protection given by the Bill to some of those in the greatest need.
I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman may have in mind those landlords who do not let with this object in view, but I think he will accept that the majority of such fixed-term lettings have been undertaken by landlords in order to find a way round the protection given by the Rent Act 1968.

Mr. Graham Page: I do not accept that the majority have done it as a form of evasion. The law allowed this. It allowed them to let on fixed terms and to obtain possession at the end of the term. Many landlords did so without any idea of evading the law. This was the law and they acted according to the law as it stood.

Mr. Freeson: I was careful not to use words like "evasion". I do not feel that those landlords were evading the law, I said that this was a method of getting out of the protection afforded by the Rent Act 1968 relating to security of tenure. Of course, the law allowed them to do it, and it is an aspect of law that many of us are concerned about. As I said in Committee, some of us, having taken legal advice, have sought to advise tenants in order to prevent landlords getting away with what they were attempting


to do. There has been a large area of doubt about the legal position. Certainly the method has been used to avoid granting security to the tenants concerned, within the law. I do not describe it as evading the law, but it was certainly getting round the security provisions of the 1968 Act, and we are seeking to close that loophole, if I may so call it.
That is the reason why the Government cannot accept the new clause. As I say, one could go into some of the technical errors in it, but the main purpose is clear. Whatever the motivation may be, the main purpose and effect are clear, and we could not possibly accept it, because it would hit many people who are in most need of the statutory security provision which the Bill would give in the furnished sector.

Mr. Allason: The Government are imposing security of tenure on existing contracts. Obviously, there is no objection to imposing security of tenure on future contracts, but retrospective legislation is intrinsically objectionable, and here the Government are interfering with existing contracts and changing their terms. These are contracts freely entered into by both parties, and the terms are now to be changed, to the detriment of the landlord.
We had some debate in Committee about the loss to the landlord, and the Minister seemed to have difficulty in understanding that there was a loss. But there is a considerable difference between the value of a house with vacant possession and its value with a tenant with security of tenure. There is a loss, because the Minister is interfering with an existing contract which is due to terminate and giving it a lifetime's extension.
The Minister said that what was done in these cases was a way out of the Act. My right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) pointed out that what was done was perfectly legitimate. Here is an example to illustrate the point. I know of a doctor who was given a year's job in the United States. He let his home furnished for a year while he was in the United States. On his return, he wanted his home back. He still wants it back, but he does not want it to live in, because he has a new appointment in another part of the country. He cannot, therefore, get

his home back on the ground that it was his home, which he let with the intention of returning to it. It would be an evasion if he returned to it for a short time in order to satisfy the law temporarily and then got out again. But he wants to be able to sell the house, as he expected to be able to do, in order to buy a house in another part of the country. Instead of allowing him to do that, the Government are interfering with his contract, and are seriously depressing the value of that house.
Injustices of that kind will inevitably occur. It is no good the Minister's pretending that they will not. This is a profoundly unsatisfactorily state of affairs, and it is quite wrong that the Minister should be prepared to create it.

Mr. Rees-Davies: This is an abominable piece of retrospective legislation. In Committee, the Minister admitted that it was retrospective legislation, and said that Socialist principles allowed it in circumstances where it was deemed necessary. That is quite contrary to Opposition principle. Whether we like a Bill or not, we do not introduce retrospective legislation. [Interruption.] No, we do not.
People let their properties furnished on fixed-term contracts because most such contracts were for six or nine months, and at the end of that period they could have their properties back, as they wished and intended according to the terms of their ordinary fixed-term contracts. There was no other reason. There was no question of getting round or out of the provisions of the Act. There may have been a few dodgers or people who wanted to keep clear of rent tribunals, but they were very much in the minority.
Although the new clause approaches the matter in a different way from that of the amendment we moved in Committee, we are still left with an unsatisfactory position. The one reason the Bill is being forced through late at night and is being taken in a matter of days, compared with the proper discussion of weeks, is to catch the landlord before he can get rid of the property. Let us come clean and say so, because that is what it seeks to do.

Question put and negatived.

New Clause 11

ACCEPTANCE OF RENT AFTER NOTICE TO QUIT

'The acceptance by the landlord of rent payable in respect of premises, which are or were subject to a protected tenancy or a tenancy to which Part VI of the Rent Act 1968 applies or a tenancy to which Part VII of the Rent (Scotland) Act 1971 applies, after the operative date of a notice to quit those premises shall not invalidate nor be deemed to be a withdrawal of that notice'.—[Mrs. Thatcher.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause be read a Second time.—[Mrs. Thatcher.]

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Lawrence: My right hon. and hon. Friends and I have somewhat fallen out of humour with the clause since it was tabled, and it is right frankly to say so and not to waste the time of the House. I shall therefore treat it as a probing clause. It frequently happens that lawyers feel it wiser to advise that if some rent has been accepted the whole process of service of notice, and so on, must start again. The law is not as clear as it might be, or, if the law is clear, it is not generally understood to be clear, and we feel that it should be. Will the Minister say clearly, therefore, that he does not intend that acceptance of rent should invalidate or be deemed to be a withdrawal of the notice.
If we get that assurance we shall be prepared not to press the clause.

The Solicitor-General (Mr. Peter Archer): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) for being straightforward about the purpose of the clause. I can answer him briefly. The law as I understand it is that the acceptance of rent after the operation of a notice to quit does not of itself create a new tenancy. It never did. It could in certain circumstances be taken as evidence from which a court would infer the intention to create a new tenancy, but there are a number of ways in which one could preclude that from happening. The language under which rent was accepted might be sufficient to displace that assumption, although language itself could not displace it if the facts clearly led to the inference of the intention to create a new tenancy.
Where the tenant is under a statutory protection, that will be an explanation which the court will take to explain the acceptance of rent, and that will displace the presumption of an intention to create a new tenancy.
I do not think that I can improve on what was said by the present Master of the Rolls in Marcroft Wagons v. Smith dealing with a case in which there was statutory protection. He said:
In these circumstances, it is no longer proper for the courts to infer a tenancy at will, or a weekly tenancy, as they would previously have done from the mere acceptance of rent. They should only infer a new tenancy when the facts truly warrant it.
and, a little later:
If the acceptance of rent can be explained on some other footing than that a contractual tenancy existed, as, for instance, by reason of an existing or possible statutory right to remain, then a new tenancy should not be inferred.
So the landlord is not obliged to allow a tenant to remain rent-free under pain of having created a new tenancy.

Mrs. Thatcher: I am most grateful to the Solicitor-General. We now have the legal position clearly on the record, and it will be valuable.

Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 15

AMENDMENT OF S. 73 OF THE RENT ACT 1968

"After subsection (2) in section 73 of the Rent Act 1968 (powers of rent tribunals on reference of Part VI contracts) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
(2A) Where on reference of a Part VI contract under which the rent includes payments for rates then—

(i) the Rent Tribunal shall determine what part of the rent is payable exclusive of rates and what amount of rates it is just and equitable that the tenant shall pay for the rating year then current;
(ii) for the purpose of this subsection the Rent Tribunal shall have the powers of a Court or Judge to apportion the rateable value of the building of which the dwelling house forms part; and
(iii) the amount so determined as payable by the tenant in respect of rates may be increased or decreased as though the letting was one to which Section 23 of the Rent Act applies".'—[Mr. Rossi.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Rossi: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With new Clause 15 we are to discuss Amendment No. 12, in page 6, line 11, at end insert:
'(3) In section 73 of that Act there shall be inserted the following subsection:
(7)(i) a person intending to let on a furnished tenancy a dwelling house which is not for the time being subject to such a tenancy may apply to the Rent Tribunal or Rent Officer as the case may be for a Certificate to be known as a certificate of approved rent;
(ii) a certificate of approved rent shall specify the rent which in the opinion of the Rent Tribunal or the Rent Officer would be a reasonable rent for the dwelling house taking into account the accommodation offered, the services provided, the sharing of facilities, and the quantity, quality and condition of the furniture and cost of its replacement;
(iii) a certificate of approved rent shall also contain full particulars of the accommodation to which it relates, the services to be provided, the sharing of facilities, and a schedule of the furniture to be supplied and its condition;
(iv) a copy of the certificate of approved rent shall be handed to any intended tenant by the landlord and shall form the basis of the letting between them;
(v) a copy of the certificate of approved rent shall also be registered in the register kept under section 74 below; and
(vi) save as provided by subsection (5) above no variation shall be made by the landlord in the rent payable under the certificate of approved rent except in accordance with such indexation as the Secretary of State shall prescribe at yearly intervals by statutory instrument"'.

Mr. Rossi: Two separate principles are involved. The clause deals with the situation in which there is a rent quoted inclusive of rates. That is normally the situation with a furnished letting. However, it is often necessary that that part of the rent which is attributable to rates should be identified, particularly when the rates increase and it is necessary for the landlord to pass on the increase to the tenant, as that is not a profit to the landlord. It is an outgoing that he has to pay to the local authority, and he is entitled to pass on the increase to his tenant.
Problems often arise because, with furnished lettings in particular, where the accommodation is in the landlord's own home, the let premises have rarely been separately assessed for rating purposes. The Rent Acts provide a machinery whereby the tenant and the landlord can

together agree the apportionment of the rateable value of the whole of the house and arrive at an agreement on what part of the total rateable value is attributable to the part of the premises which are the subject matter of the furnished letting. Where there is no agreement, the matter has to be referred to a county court and the county court judge has power to apportion.
In Committee the view was expressed that it seemed singularly unfortunate that there were three separate administrations having to deal with the relationship of landlord and tenant. If questions of harassment or missing rent books arise, the parties go off to a magistrate to deal with them under the criminal code. If it is a question of arriving at the rent, they go to a rent tribunal. But if they have problems as to possession or the terms of the tenancy they go to the county court. Three separate sets of proceedings can apply out of virtually the same set of circumstances.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that that is not a proper posture that the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) is adopting.

Mr. Rossi: What we are seeking in this instance, where no great harm or difficulty can arise, is to have the rent tribunal deal with a relatively simple issue, so that when the parties go before a rent tribunal to consider questions of rent, at one and the same time the rent tribunal can deal with any questions as to apportionment of rateable value that might arise. The same hearing can deal with all questions related to the rent, rates and the apportionment of the rateable value.
Rent tribunals are composed of a triumvirate, consisting normally of a lawyer, a professional valuer and a layman. One would have thought that a rent tribunal experienced in dealing with valuations as to rent would be equally competent to do the arithmetic necessary in splitting up the rateable value of a building as between the component parts. Therefore, we suggest it as a matter of great convenience to landlords and tenants, and particularly to rent tribunals, which would welcome having to do it instead of having to send parties elsewhere for determination.
In Amendment No. 12 we are seeking to introduce a new machinery very similar to that which exists in respect of rent officers. A rent officer can in certain circumstances certify what is the fair rent of the accommodation before a letting actually takes place.
The amendment proposes to give a similar jurisdiction for furnished accommodation, because the certificate of fair rent up to now has only applied to unfurnished accommodation. We say that where a person intends to let a furnished tenancy
… not for the time being subject to such a tenancy. …
he may apply to the rent tribunal or the rent officer. We need to say that now because the jurisdictions are split, depending upon whether the landlord lives in the house.
Even though it is furnished accommodation, if the landlord lives in the house the rent tribunal is the correct forum; if he does not live in the house the parties have to go to the rent officer to determine any rental question under the Bill. Therefore, the amendments speaks of both the rent tribunal and the rent officer dealing with the question of furnished lettings where a landlord wants to know before he lets what should be the correct rent to charge. He makes his application and the rent tribunal or rent officer can specify the rent that is considered to be a reasonable rent for the dwelling, taking into account the accommodation offered, the services provided, whether any facilities are proposed to be shared between the tenant and anyone else living in the house, the quantity, quality and condition of the furniture and the cost of its replacement.
It is also suggested in the amendment that the certificate of approved rent shall contain the particulars I have just mentioned, and also a schedule or list of the furniture to be supplied and its condition. The need for that lies in the fact that if a certificate of approved rent is given by the rent tribunal or rent officer on the basis of what the tribunal or rent officer says, it would be most undesirable if questions arose at a later date of the landlord's removing or changing the furniture that had led to a particular rent being certified as reasonable.
Therefore, to avoid that situation arising, it would be necessary, for the certificate to contain a list of the furniture and an indication of the condition. Then the certificate of approved rent issued by the rent tribunal or the rent officer would be handed to the intended landlords with a copy of the certificate signed by the rent officer or someone on behalf of the rent tribunal and that would form the basis of the letting between the parties. It would stipulate the rent payable and certified as reasonable. It would also certify the accommodation and give details of it and of the services and state whether there was any sharing of facilities, and it would list the furniture. For a double security—a double lock, as it were, on the situation—a copy of the certificate of approved rent would be kept in a register.
11.30 p.m.
Finally, the new clause states that no variation could be made by the landlord in the rent payable under the certificate of approved rent except in accordance with such indexation as the Secretary of State prescribed by statutory instrument at yearly intrvals. The extent to which he authorised a percentage increase in rents in any given year to take care of the cost of repairs and maintenance and the cost of furniture would be entirely a matter for the Secretary of State, having regard generally to the cost of living within reasonable limits and ensuring fairness between the parties in view of the ordinary contingencies of life.
The protection of the tenant would be the certificate issued in advance by the rent tribunal or the rent officer, and the protection of the landlord would be that, having gone through this procedure and found what was a reasonable and fair rent—the term that one uses does not matter—having found the rent stipulated by an independent body, the landlord would know that the tenant, entering that bargain with his eyes open, would not later be able to cause difficulties about the certified quantum of rent.
The objective of the new clause is to remove much of the difficulty that can arise between landlord and tenant when the tenant feels that he is being overcharged and that the landlord is being too greedy. If the rent can be certified in advance in this way, the tenant will rest


assured from the outset that he is paying a fair and appropriate rent for his furnished accommodation.

Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: Will my hon. Friend say whether what he is recommending would be national legislation or local byelaws? Has he in mind the cost of this pretty expensive apparatus? Should that cost be borne on national taxation or by local ratepayers?

Mr. Rossi: As far as I am aware, rent tribunals are not paid by local authorities. I am not sure about rent officers. They are appointed by town clerks, but I am not sure whether the local authorities pay their salaries. Even if they do, I am not sure whether they are not 100 per cent. reimbursed by the State. In any case, the apparatus already exists. The rent officers are to be supplemented by an increased staff to cope with the work that the Bill will give them. I do not think that this proposal would mean a great deal of additional work. In the long term it will reduce work, because if rents are certified in advance, fewer disputes will come before officers, with all the acrimony that such disputes entail.

Mr. Kaufman: I can lift the burden fo apprehension from the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) as I fear that I cannot be forthcoming to his hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) about the two proposals that he has put forward. There is already provision in Section 6 of the 1968 Act for the court to determine the apportionment of rateable value. Even after listening to the hon. Member for Hornsey I am still not clear why the clause should give this power to the rent tribunal, apart from the intention of saving a separate application to the court for a determination.
I had occasion to tell the hon. Gentleman in Standing Committee that the fixing of the proportion of rates payable by the tenant is no part of the rent tribunal's functions and is specifically excluded by the provisions of Clause 6. If a dwelling is not a separate rateable hereditament and there is disagreement between landlord and tenant as to the proportion of rates payable, the only proper recourse is to the court. To give the rent tribunal equivalent powers would, in our view, not produce a sensible solution.
With regard to Amendment No. 12, I shall not trouble the House with arguments, which I could advance, about the principle of a certification procedure. This is controversial. One could cite the Holy Writ, or at any rate the Apocrypha of Francis. There is no need for me to do so, however, since the procedure set out in the amendment is unacceptable to the Government. It provides that the landlord may increae the rent in accordance with an index annually prescribed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State without any requirement for a reference to the rent tribunal for registration of a rent increased in this manner.
One can only presume that the indexation procedure would allow a landlord, even if it was not specifically so intended, to recover a higher rent each year to take account of the effects of inflation. This, I must tell the hon. Gentleman—although I am sure he knows it—is directly contrary to the principle of rent fixing that the rent fixed relates primarily to the accommodation provided. I must also tell the hon. Gentleman that it conflicts violently with the Government's fight to hold down prices to combat inflation. I cannot, therefore, recommend the House to accept the hon. Gentleman's new clause or his amendment.

Mr. Graham Page: I am astonished at the Under-Secretary. Sometimes it is a virtue to go on playing a straight bat and be obstructive to every sort of reform procedure put forward by this side of the House. New Clause 15 represents a simple little change to reduce the procedure and to make it easy for the parties to get a decision; instead of going to the court, instead of getting one decision and taking that to the rent tribunal and having a further decision, to go to one body, the rent tribunal, and get it all decided there.
The parties have to go to the rent tribunal to decide between them what the rent may be. It is perfectly simple to have the rates apportioned there and have the matter decided. It is a burden on the county court to have to decide this as a separate issue. It is a burden on the parties to go there.
I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman could have accepted such a simple little reform of this nature. I have no doubt that at the top of his brief is written "Reject".

Mr. Kaufman: "Resist".

Mr. Page: It is sometimes "Resist" sometimes "Reject". I am delighted that it is only "Resist" because "Reject" is much firmer. I wish that the hon. Gentleman would simply cross out "Resist"" and substitute "Consider". I thought I saw a sort of smile on his face at one time and that he would allow this proposal to go through. It is such a simple little reform but it would bring great benefit to the parties and to the court or tribunal and yet it is rejected, and not even on the basis of drafting. Even if my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) had not drafted it quite right, however, it would not matter if it went into the Bill now because we must have a Bill of Corrigendum next Session to correct all the mess that has been made to legislation during the past few days.
I am told that there are at least six clauses in the Housing Bill which are complete "ga-ga" and are not even intelligent grammar, let alone intelligent law. We will have to have a Bill of Corrigendum. I urge the Minister to let my hon. Friend have his amendment and if there is any drafting to be put right let it be done later.

Question put and negatived.

Clause 2

CERTAIN TENANCIES NOT TO BE PROTECTED

Mrs. Thatcher: I beg to move Amendment No. 17, in page 2, line 33, after 'persons', insert:
'or by an individual or individuals of a dwelling house approved by a specified educational institution'.
This amendment concerns students and their accommodation. The Minister knows that this has been the subject of important debates in the other place, and I know that this cause was pleaded with clarity and cogency in Committee. It is a measure of the importance which we attach to the subject that once again we return to it. As I understand it, without this amendment the only accommodation exempted from the Bill is that provided by educational institutions for their students, with an extension for specified institutions and bodies of persons. With the amendment incorporated in the Bill the accommodation at present available

for students in the form of houses, flats or bed-sitters in the university and polytechnic towns would likewise escape protection and therefore continue to be available for the student world.
For years, every late September or October, I have been on the receiving end of complaints from the university towns that there was insufficient accommodation available for students. At the begining of the Michaelmas term we were always worried that that would turn out to be true, because the universities and polytechnics provide only a minority of the residential places for the students under their care. With a university it might be one-third, with a polytechnic considerably less. The rest is provided by the ordinary accommodation in the town.
A lot of such accommodation these days is in the form of flats or houses, because that is the way students like to live these days. They do not want to go to the old-fashioned landlady to the extent that we did 20 or more years ago. They want to take their own accommodation and share it and rent it. It is usually rented furnished. A number of landlords and landladies provide that kind of accommodation and it is recognised that it is for students.
If the Bill goes through unamended in this way our fear is that a good deal of that accommodation will not be available, because a number of existing students will become protected tenants and may hold over and not release the accommodation for the new generation of students. Consider towns which have universities, polytechnics and colleges of education. I can think of a number, like Oxford, Brighton, Leeds, Birmingham and Exeter. A number of big cities have a considerable number of educational institutions. Each year the number of students increases.
I know that we used to say that in percentage terms we tried to keep the percentage of accommodation provided by the universities in terms of halls of residence constant in relation to the total numbers. But percentages can be misleading. When there is an expansion in universities and higher education the number who go to these places annually increases, so that the actual number of those who have to find accommodation increases.
11.45 p.m.
Our great fear is that this September or October, when one has protection for the first time, if our amendment is not accepted there will be a shortage on a scale never before experienced, which will continue into successive years. I know that the National Union of Students thinks the Government's position is all right. I have had conversations with its vice-president on this matter. If accommodation is not there, there is no way of providing it rapidly. One cannot in the circumstances rapidly put up prefab accommodation. The only way is to see that the accommodation which would normally be released continues to be released.
I understand that in future years a register of approved accommodation will be provided so that landlords who provide houses, flatlets or bed-sitters can apply to the bursar for approval. They would then become "approved accommodation" and would be exempt from protection.
However, as I look at the clause, it does not seem to me that the regulation-making powers under subsection (2) would, as at present drafted, enable the Government to do that. Let us examine subsection (1). Accommodation which is exempt from the Bill is accommodation
provided by a specified educational institution … or body of persons.
Then we go to the next provision to see what is meant by "specified", and it says that it means
specified, or of a class specified … for the purpose of that paragraph by regulations made by the Secretary of State by statutory instrument.
It is accommodation provided by another specified institution or by a class of specified institution. It looks to me as though that refers not to a miscellaneous group of individuals but to the kind of institution that provides halls of residence—which is not the institution authorised by the university as such. For example, churches may well provide halls of residence for some of their own people who are at university. One might specify a class of accommodation provided by the churches for those attending university or polytechnic. Sometimes, voluntary bodies will provide accommodation for those going to university. But it looks to me

as though in that case "specify" does not mean a group of individuals in any way. The only other group it covers is a body of persons. I doubt whether a miscellaneous group of individuals is a body of persons. I shall ask the Minister whether what he proposes to do is within the regulation-making power of subsection (2), because I do not believe it is. Perhaps the Solicitor-General will look into the situation while I am talking.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: It does not ultimately depend on what the Minister is good enough to tell us tonight; it depends, in part, whether the Statutory Instruments Committee of this House reports whether such a statutory instrument is or is not ultra vires in terms of the Bill. If the Minister believes that the Bill can cover landladies and the Statutory Instruments Committee takes the view that it is ultra vires, his intention in the statutory instrument would be nullified. We would then have to have amending legislation which could not possibly be done within the time sequence. My right hon. Friend was rightly drawing that situation to the attention of the House.

Mrs. Thatcher: I hope that we have now made the point. I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It makes it even more important to get it right now and for the Government to consider accepting our Amendment if the position is to be covered this year and in future years without introducing new legislation for the purpose.
As I understand it, only accommodation that is provided by the institution or a particular class of institution or a body of persons, in the sense of a group of trustees or an unincorporated society, is exempted from the protection provided in the Bill. If that is so, the position which may reign in Oxford, Birmingham, Leeds, Exeter, Hove, and so on, may be very serious. That is why we think it wise to pursue the amendment. Unless we can obtain rigid assurance from the Minister that what he wants to do is covered, I hope that he will consider accepting the amendment.

Mr. Christopher Woodhouse: I support my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), because my constituency is likely to be one of those severely affected by the Clause if the amendment is not carried.
If the amendment is not carried, the sufferers from the consequences of the Bill will not be the landlords. They will be the students, and others in a like position—for example, nurses in training at hospitals or apprentices in industry on industrial training courses, to name only two examples which would also arise in Oxford.
As my right hon. Friend has asked some penetrating questions about the exast significance of the clause as it is drafted, I wish to seek clarification from the Minister about the exact meaning of the Bill as drafted and as understood by the Government. In order to do that I must first explain my understanding of the meaning of the clause, and I shall then ask the Minister for a categorical confirmation of or disagreement with my interpretation.
It appears that the Bill as drafted takes care of the interests of the educational institutions themselves when they provide hostels or similar accommodation. This appears clear from subsection (1)(bb).
Secondly, from what she said I am not entirely sure whether my right hon. Friend was in agreement with my interpretation, but it appears to me that the Bill will also take care of the interests of landladies or landlords who let rooms to students in houses which they themselves occupy. This appears to arise from Schedule 2, paragraph 1. I ask the Minister for a categorical confirmation of those two points or for reasons for disagreeing.
In other words, I understand that students who are tenants of either educational institutions or of landlords or landladies resident in the houses in which they let rooms are excluded from protection by the Bill. This appears to be perfectly right, but I do not see why, if the educational institution is taken care of by the Bill, the private landlord who lets a furnished flat or house of which he is not an occupant should not be put in the same position as the educational institution, since he is providing exactly the same service on the same terms to the same students. Why should he not have the same right as the educational institution to recover his property in order to let it again to future students, as student generations go on?
If the amendment is carried the landlord will have that right; if not, it appears to me that what will happen will be the same as has already happened with unfurnished accommodation, to which the same principles have been applied in the past—namely, that landlords will simply take such accommodation off the market and it will no longer be available for letting to students.
I see at least one hon. Gentleman shake his head but I have already heard from owners of property in Oxford that that is what they intend to do. That will have very severe consequences for young students, especially those who, as my right hon. Friend said, prefer to live alone or in groups rather than to take bed-sitters in a house with a landlady or a landlord.
In a town like Oxford—admittedly, there is no town exactly like Oxford, but in a town where there is, for example, a university, a polytechnic, a college of further education, a teacher training college, a teaching hospital, a very large engineering industry with a large number of apprentices, many secretarial colleges, crammers, and so on, serving many thousands of students, of whom increasing numbers want to live in groups or alone—the consequences of the Bill, without the amendment, will be very grave.
It is no use the Minister's saying, if he intends to do so, that such students, apprentices, or nurses can go to hostels or boarding houses, because that is precisely what independent young people do not want to do, and, in any case, there will not be enough. Neither is it any use the Minister's saying, if he intends to do so, that most of them will leave anyway when their courses finish, so that their landlords will have no real problem. Most of them will leave, but it is the minority who will not that alarms the landlords.
Unfortunately, we have begun to breed in this country what the Russians used to call perpetual students, admittedly in small numbers—but even small numbers are sufficient to create an alarming situation. Even now, I sometimes get requests for help in obtaining grants from students in their late' thirties who have been living for years on the taxpayer by means of educational grants. Lest I be misunderstood, because I am speaking of Oxford, let me make it quite


clear that I am not talking of Ruskin College where different conditions apply. But this is happening, and the consequence is that landlords will not take the risk of being encumbered with these perpetual students, even though they are a minority, when they have no legal means of recovering possession of their property. They will therefore withdraw their property from the market and the sufferers will be the students of future generations.
It is, therefore—here I agree with my right hon. Friend—essential that an amendment on these lines is incorporated into the Bill. I repeat that this is necessary in the interests not of the landlords who will be well able to take care of themselves, but of future generations of students.

12 midnight.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: There is a further conundrum upon which I should welcome advice. Particularly in the city so ably represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Woodhouse), many of the landladies are not freeholders of their properties, but have a limited lease. If we produce a situation in which their sub-tenants have a security that extends beyond that of the landlady herself, what will be the position?
Under the terms of her lease, she is bound on a certain date to give up the property with vacant possession. If the landlady cannot do that because she has sub-let—not in breach of the lease but in a manner that was in accordance with the lease when she sub-let but which has been overtaken by the degree of security that is prohibited by the lease—what will happen? She will have broken the lease, in effect, by retrospective legislation. I am not a lawyer, and I shall be grateful if somebody will explain the position.

Mr. Woodhouse: I put a question on this to the Minister, and I am glad to have this opportunity of re-emphasising it because, if my understanding is correct, the landlady who lets rooms in a house in which she is herself an occupant has her interests taken care of under the Bill. In other words, those to whom she lets rooms are excluded from the Bill by the terms of paragraph 1 of Schedule 2. I may be wrong about this, but that is the point on which I asked the Minister to inform the House.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: We are faced with the phenomenon of an increasing number of married students. They need a different type of accommodation from that needed by single students, and in response to that need quite a lot of accommodation for letting in university cities has been divided into flats. What was originally a house with landlady who let four or five bedrooms to four or five students now, to meet the needs of married students, has been divided into flats, with the landlady living in one of the flats.
I am not a lawyer, but I think that in law the landlady in such a case comes outside the protection afforded to somebody living in the house. Again we get this conundrum of people acquiring a security for reasons that the Government do not intend.

Mr. Allason: I do not know whether my hon. Friend has studied Clause 10 and the case where there is a separate flat in the house. If the landlady is living in the house, I think that my hon. Friend is perfectly correct. But supposing the landlady wishes to retire. I think that the matter is taken care of in Clause 10. She gracefully disappears and the landlord is saddled with responsibility for tenants. What we do not know is who is responsible for providing them with furniture if their letting is furnished.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: All this shows that we could unwittingly get into a position in which what was intended to be student accommodation ceases to be student accommodation. My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Woodhouse) represents a university city which probably has the highest proportion of in-house accommodation—the colleges accommodating students—and the Smallest proportion of undergraduates being out in digs, cottages, or accommodation of other kinds.
Cities such as Exeter, with newer universities, do not have the same tradition of accommodation to let for students. They have expanded fairly rapidly. Therefore, this problem can become particularly acute for them. Moreover, in cities such as Exeter, which is in the centre of a holiday area, the low rents charged to students are made possible because in


the Summer Recess the same accommodation is let to holiday visitors. If, however, this security of tenure is given, that whole system may be destroyed. The result would be that students would have to be charged much higher rents, because the landlady would be unable to rely on letting the accommodation. This is not generally done on an ad hoc basis. It is advertised in advance. If the landlady does not know whether the accommodation will be free when the recess comes, we are in danger of changing the whole pattern of student accommodation in a manner that will be extremely harmful to our student population. It will be beyond the capacity of anyone, including the universities or local authorities, to remedy this situation in a matter of two or three years once the Bill reaches the statute book.
I ask the Minister to give serious reconsideration to altering so radically the system of student accommodation with the serious risk of results which I am sure he does not intend. We do not intend them, and if none of us intends them let us not pass legislation which may have those consequences.

Mr. Tony Durant: I should like to make one or two points on behalf of the smaller university such as Reading University. Unless the amendment is adopted there may easily be a considerable shortage of accommodation. About two-thirds of students at Reading University are accommodated in hall and about one-third outside the university.
Reading is at present a boom town. A tremendous amount of new office accommodation is being brought in. Landladies and those letting furnished accommodation will obviously tend to prefer to offer this on short-term loan to companies coming to the area. They know that, as tenants, the executives or the office workers who have moved from London are preferable to students, where there is some risk of their not moving out. They know that the executives and office workers are mostly married, living in limited accommodation for only a short time and will wish to move to other accommodation. This will obviously lead to the accommodation being let to executives and typists, and will tend to dry up a necessary reserve of accommodation

for the one-third of university students in small towns such as Reading. I therefore support the amendment.

Mr. Freeson: I accept that there has been a change in the pattern of accommodation in university towns such as Reading, where there has been an expansion in certain types of employment. In inner London, one of the greatest pressure areas is small households, especially in respect of accommodation for single people. We must come to terms with these changing patterns in our housing policy.
The hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Woodhouse) expressed an understanding of the situation in relation to students. Many resident landlords still take in students. We do not know the pattern outside halls of residence. It would be useful if, in due time, we could establish the pattern.
Students who stay in residence with landlords or landladies are in exactly the same position as that of any other tenant with a resident landlord or landlady—they stay within the ambit of Part VI of the 1968 Act and do not come within the statutory security that is provided in the Bill for furnished tenants. Subject to what we have to say about students, this will apply only to tenants of nonresident landlord properties. This is also subject to other exceptions which we have discussed. I hope that that is perfectly clear. The security provisions do not affect the position of tenants of resident landladies and landlords, including students.
The power introduced by subsection (2)—this is, in effect, the new Section 2(4) of the 1968 Act—does not allow the Secretary of State to describe the registration scheme by statutory instrument. That is for future legislation, as I sought to make clear in Committee.
The right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) asked whether the clause did not need amendment to make the regulation-making power work in the context of the registration scheme. It is not necessary to have the clause so drafted, because it is not meant to provide for this. This will be done by separate legislation. Although I have stated it briefly, I think this covers the point which she sought to illustrate.
12.15 a.m.
As for the position this year, I said in the closing stages of our Committee discussions that I would make yet further inquiries, in readiness for the Report stage, in order to get up-to-date information about the position with regard to the Department of Education and Science. The Department has had no evidence submitted to it of any shortfall being expected this coming September. It has made inquiries, and there is no evidence to suggest that there is any substance in the fears expressed in Committee and restated tonight. It is, of course, right that hon. Members, particularly those representing constituencies where the problem could arise, should express these fears, so that we may investigate them. I have been in touch with the Department of Education and Science, and understand that there is no evidence to suggest that the introduction of this Bill and its prospective enactment and implementation will produce the kind of situation about which hon. Members have expressed fears.

Mr. Tyler: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has had discussions also with the National Union of Students. I met the president of the union and he took the same view, that there is no cause for alarm at present.

Mr. Freeson: I have not had personal contact with Mr. Randall; I have had correspondence from him, and I have had representations which were the basis of some of our discussion in Committee. I based many of my remarks in Committee on those representations from the National Union of Students, and because of the queries raised by hon. Members opposite I explained that we had been in touch with the Department of Education and Science and that I would be in touch with the Department again. It is fair to say that although the NUS has expressed certain views, it does not necessarily follow that different evidence has not been presented to the Department of Education and Science. All I can say is that we have had no such evidence passed on to us. I repeat what I said in Committee, that if such evidence is forthcoming, we shall clearly have to reconsider taking some kind of temporary action if it is possible and if it is necessary. We do not think it will be necessary. We think that the move towards the registration scheme

about which we want to have consultations will be in time for the subsequent terms in the following year, and no evidence of the anxieties and fears which have been expressed has come from the university areas.

Mr. Woodhouse: If the Minister is talking about the fear of furnished accommodation for students in university lodgings being withdrawn from the market, he appeared to me to say that there was no evidence that this had happened yet. The point we are making relates to the future; the fear is that this will happen as soon as the Bill becomes law.

Mr. Freeson: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman did not pay sufficiently close attention to my words. I was not referring to the past. I was referring to the prospects. Understandably, fears were expressed by Opposition Members at some length in Committee to the effect that the introduction of this Bill and the fact that it would soon become law would noticeably reduce the nonresident landlord accommodation available to university students. I have been in touch with the Department of Education and Science. We are in touch regularly. I made a point of having a further check done between the end of the Committee stage and the Report stage here in the House to see whether there was yet any evidence. There is no evidence for the future—that is, the future this coming September. I am speaking now about the future.
As for the position thereafter, on the basis of the consultations referred to in Committee, on Second Reading and again tonight, we shall be drawing up a registration scheme for subsequent years in order to exclude certain kinds of registered accommodation, in the terms indicated in the Bill and in our debates, from the normal security provisions under the Bill.

Mrs. Thatcher: With all due respect, the Department of Education and Science would not know what the position is likely to be now. That is why it phrased its reply so carefully—"We have no evidence". Of course, it has no evidence, at just about the end of term. That is the sort of meaningless reply one sometimes gives to questions simply because one is being jolly careful not to commit oneself.

Mr. Freeson: The right hon. Lady is being less than fair. It was not I who suggested to the Department of Education and Science that there was a risk, or that there was evidence of a drying up. There have been genuine fears expressed to hon. Members opposite, even without firm evidence—that is not a criticism—fears expressed from certain quarters in education, and I undertook to ask that inquiries be made. There was no question of my asking just for a message from the back of a desk in the Department of Education and Science. The Department has been making inquiries, and those inquiries have produced no evidence.
We have been asked to take some sort of temporary step to meet a situation as described by Opposition Members on the basis of what had been put to them. I can only agree to that if the temporary step, whatever it be, is taken to deal with a situation of the existence of which there is some evidence. Inquiries have been made—it was not, as I say, just a desk answer—and nothing has been received. The Department has been in touch, and there is no evidence to support the fears understandably expressed by hon. Members in Committee and today.

Mr. Rossi: Let us have the matter clear. The hon. Gentleman speaks of fears expressed to Opposition Members. They were direct representations made to us by those responsible in the universities for providing accommodation for their students. That takes it a little further than the hon. Gentleman has done. This is staff of universities anxious for the provision of accommodation for their students. I should have thought that that was direct evidence. The House must draw its own conclusions.

Mr. Freeson: I take this matter as seriously as the hon. Gentleman does. Of course, we take it seriously, otherwise, we should not be building into the Bill the beginnings of the scheme we have in mind. I have accepted that there were those representations and those fears. What we have sought from the Department of Education and Science, in order that we might come to a view on the matter, is information, not just representations about fears. I do not say that in any offhand way. If representatives of

institutions come to the hon. Gentleman, to me or to any other hon. Member and say, "We are concerned about the Bill, and we fear that it will do this or that to the student letting market", in order to come to a conclusion on the matter, to come to a policy decision and, if need be, to legislate, one must go back to them and say, "You have expressed certain fears. Will you give me evidence now, or as soon as you can, showing that your fears are real and that this is actually happening?".
It has been my task to try to establish that. We have been in touch with the DES, which in turn has made inquiries. I have not tried to brush the thing aside, and I am not trying to do so now. But what I am saying is that, as a basis for decision making, we have no evidence to suggest that there will be the kind of reduction in accommodation about which hon. Members opposite have expressed fears and about which the institutions have expressed fears to them. If we get that information we shall certainly look at the matter again. As I indicated in Committee, in the meantime we cannot act upon something upon which we have no information.

Mr. Rees-Davies: There has been no consultation between the Government, the University Grants Committee and the other bodies which are in a position to provide information which the Government want. Because of the desperate rush over the Bill they have not been able to obtain that information. There has been no consultation, That is why we are in this difficulty.

Mr. Freeson: The DES made inquiries at our request. No evidence has been submitted to it from the educational institutions. That does not mean that this event will not happen; it means that there is no evidence of its happening. If we get the evidence we can take action, but in the meantime we shall proceed along the lines set out in the Bill.

Mr. Durant: The Minister says that he does not have evidence from the National Union of Students that students are anxious about this. I have here a magazine provided by the union at Reading University, which highlights in


a full-blown article the tremendous anxiety there is for the coming term.

Mr. Freeson: I do not question that anxiety exists. We saw the article in Standing Committee. I do not wish to push the issue aside. When the information about the coming term arrives—if it arrives—we shall see what we can do to help.
Perhaps I may now deal with the amendment instead of constantly being interrupted.

Mr. Rossi: What puzzles us is to know how, with the best will in the world, the Minister will be able to deal with the situation in September. The evidence that he is looking for will not arrive until September. Unless the Minister has power under the Bill to take steps he will find that in September the students will not have the accommodation available. Without the amendment there is nothing that the hon. Gentleman will be able to do by regulation.

Mr. Freeson: I must reply bluntly to the hon. Member. The kind of statements he has been making from time to time in Committee have raised unnecessary anxieties on this score, and it is not good enough every time I stand here asking for the information for hon. Members to pursue their arguments and yet not provide it. If action is required, we can consider it, but no evidence has been provided.
12.30 a.m.
The amendment seems to be an attempt to anticipate the measures we have promised for a registration scheme for private lettings to students. It has been argued that the risk to the supply of lettings for the new academic year this coming autumn necessitates some form of action now, but despite inquiries we have had no suggestion of the threat of loss to which hon. Members and various institutions have referred.
The amendment is unsuitable for its purpose. It would grant specified institutions an almost untrammeled power to exclude tenancies from protection. It would be a power limited only by the fact that the tenancies are, or are to be, granted to their students, and exercisable without any other limit as to numbers, any criteria relevant to the accommodation, the landlord or anything else, or any

reference to the local housing authority, which might be placed in considerable difficulty by uncontrolled pre-emption of available private lettings for students.
All these are among the matters that must be studied with representatives of all concerned in producing the kind of registration scheme we wish to devise as soon as possible. An uncontrolled provision for educational institutions to exclude tenancies from protection by approval cannot be a substitute, even temporarily, for the kind of system it is necessary to produce to meet the problems with which we are here concerned.
We intend to have consultations with the Department of Education and Science, the institutions and local authorities concerned, and their associations, to produce the right kind of registration system. That is the sensible and most productive way of going about this. We do not see the need to push ahead with an inadequate temporary provision that will produce the threats I have indicated. That would not be the right way of going about it.
We should have consultations and after proposals have come from them proceed as the Government have indicated they wish to proceed.

Mr. Graham Page: Is the Minister saying that the Bill enables him to carry out a form of registration? If so, is it through the words "body of persons"?

Mr. Freeson: I have said that there will be a need for legislation to deal with the registration scheme. This will follow the consultations that I have indicated it is our intention to embark upon.

Mr. Graham Page: Mr. Graham Page rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Minister has sat down.

Mr. Sainsbury: Mr. Sainsbury rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Has the hon. Gentleman already spoken on this amendment?

Mr. Sainsbury: I have not spoken on this matter, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should like to say a few words in summary of what was has been said so far.
The Minister is not now unaware of the concern in the House about the matter. A great deal of time has been spent on


discussing the point in another place and in Committee. The Minister has repeatedly said that there is no evidence. I suggest that it is very unlikely that there would be any evidence at this time.
I wish to speak of the University of Sussex, which is the principal but by no means only source of student lettings in the area I represent. Only about 50 per cent. of the students at the university are accommodated either on the campus or in halls of residence elsewhere owned by the university. Half the students have to find their accommodation elsewhere.
Risks and problems can arise in lettings to students. In the Brighton and Hove area, there has been a great deal of correspondence in the local papers and discussion of the difficulties of student lettings. Some of the students have complained of the absence of unfurnished accommodation. It may seem surprising that they should seek unfurnished accommodation, but many married students, for example would like it. Its absence is not surprising following previous legislation. These students much prefer houses, flats and bed-sitting rooms, in that order, to the traditional sort of university accommodation—the lodging with a landlady who provides board. I have it on the authority of Sussex University that such accommodation is much avoided by the student body.
Much of the accommodation that the students prefer, we suspect—although we do not know—is provided in dwellings which are not any part of a building where the landlord already lives. At this time of year, only impending first-year students are having their accommodation dealt with by the university. The second-and third-year and post-graduate students are dealing with their own accommodation problems. The tendency has been in previous years for the first Sunday of term to be the day when a number of students go to the accommodation officer and complain about their inability to find accommodation. It does not arise until that moment.
We are confirmed in our fear that the problem which the Minister is avoiding solving will come up too late to solve—when term has started and it will no longer be possible to take temporary

action. What temporary action does the hon. Gentleman think he can take when term has started?
We have heard that there is no evidence. It is impossible for there to be any. The hon. Gentleman has admitted that despite the absence of evidence, as he puts it, he is prepared to legislate, yet we do not even know what the pattern is outside the halls of residence. The hon. Gentleman admits something which those of us representing areas where there are universities admit—that we do not know how much of the student accommodation is found in dwellings which are not in a building in which the landlord also lives and which would therefore be brought into protection for the first time by the Bill. We do not know and he does not know, yet he is prepared to legislate in the absence of vital information. The hon. Gentleman says that one cannot act on something on which one has no information, but if he had listened to the debate properly he might have been in a position to take action.
The hon. Gentleman spoke about unnecessary anxiety being introduced into this situation by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi). The anxiety that exists now and that will be considerably increased is entirely of the Minister's own making. He has been warned enough in another place, in Committee and in the House.
The amendment has much to commend it for one special reason—it would encourage the compilation of a register, an idea that has been welcomed on both sides of the House. The Minister talks of a registration scheme for future legislation, but what help will that be for next year's students or, by the time the change has been made, for future students?
The warning has been clearly sounded. There is anxiety, and it is not surprising, because it will be impossible to take the action necessary to correct the damage that the Bill may cause when the evidence to which the Minister has constantly referred becomes available. He condemns the amendment as an inadequate and temporary provision, but even an inadequate provision would be better than no provision at all.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 3

RECOVERY OF POSSESSION OF DWELLING HOUSES LET ON CERTAIN TENANCIES

Mr. Kaufman: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 3, line 24, leave out 'lets' and insert 'let'.
I suggest that with this we discuss Amendment No. 7.
The credit for seeing the need for these amendments must go to the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) who, with his habitual thoroughness, spotted the fact that the verb was in the wrong tense in the retirement home case. I should like to express the Government's thanks to him for such an admirable piece of proof reading and repeat the offer that I made to him in Standing Committee of a job in the Department at any time he chooses to leave this place.
By exchanging "let" for "lets" we make absolutely clear that this case may apply to a letting created before the Bill comes into operation as well as to a letting created after that date. Coupled with moving the amendment, I offer a vote of thanks to the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Graham Page: I rise only to thank the hon. Member for that sarcastic bouquet.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Allason: I beg to move Amendment No. 19, in page 3, line 37, leave out:
'has retired from regular employment and'.
In this Clause, which introduces a new Case 10A, the Government appear to have provided satisfactorily for the case of the retirement home. Many people are required by the nature of their employment to live in tied accommodation or somewhere where they do not have to live after retirement. Consequently, they seek to provide for their retirement by buying a home somewhere else. They want to start while they are earning the money to do so, when they can begin to pay off the mortgage. Large numbers are affected. One thinks of police officers and bank managers. They need somewhere to live following retirement. People retire from their principal jobs and they then need the new accommodation. Unfortunately, however, in the clause the

Government require a test of total retirement. This we seek to amend.
12.45 a.m.
It cannot be satisfactory public policy to require that someone retiring from his principal job—say, a police officer at the age of 55 or a bank manager at 60—should go into permanent, complete retirement, yet he is required to do this by the terms of the clause. Surely it must be sensible to say that if a man retires from the job which has held him away from the place in which he wants to live on his retirement, that should be the moment when he can take the house that he has provided for his retirement. So far it has all been simple—he has let the house furnished and he knows that he can get it back—but he knows that in future he will not get it back unless he is within the narrow terms of Case 10A. Case 10A is too narrow.
Case 10A requires a series of tests. First, the man must have bought the house with the intention of retiring to it. Secondly, he has to give notice to his tenant that that will happen and that he will come back to the house when he wants it. Thirdly, he must not let it on a protected tenancy. Fourthly, we get the objectionable part that the court has to be satisfied that the owner has retired from regular employment and requires the dwelling-house.
If we leave out the requirement that he has retired from regular employment we are left with the tests, first, that the house is required for the purposes of retirement; secondly, that there has been notice in writing; thirdly, that there has not been a protected tenancy; and, fourthly, that the owner requires the dwelling-house, but not that he has permanently retired because the likelihood is that many people who leave their principal employment will take on something else.
It is ludicrous to expect people to cease all employment at a quite early age. Officers of the Services come very much into this category. Perhaps I should declare not an interest but an experience. Having retired from the Services I received retirement pay, but I undertook another job, which I have carried on very satisfactorily for the last 15 years. I needed to change my residence.
It seems to me, therefore, that there is no need for these words. They will do an immense amount of harm. The court would have to judge. It would be able to weed out the unsatisfactory cases which, no doubt, the Minister will talk about, the bogus cases in which somebody gets round the entire matter by saying "I have bought this place for retirement and, therefore, I want to be able to get the tenant out of the house at any time I like." The court must be satisfied that the house was bought for retirement.
I therefore regard our amendment as necessary. If it is not passed, some very hard cases will be caused.

Mr. Freeson: The effect of the amendment would be to allow a landlord who retired from regular employment and who had purchased a house for his residence to claim possession of it if the court was satisfied that he required the house as a residence at another time.
It may be that the intention behind the amendment is to widen Case 10A, which is built into the Bill to deal with retirement homes—this was the Government's specific intention—so as to give a landlord an absolute right to possession of a dwelling-house for his own use. The amendment would not achieve this effect, whatever its intention might be. It would apply only where the landlord had intended, when he purchased it, to occupy the house on his retirement. It might be designed to do just this—to offer some relief to the landlord who wishes to move into his retirement home before retirement, whenever that might be, whenever such application might be made to the court for it to decide upon.
On the other hand—and this remains the point at issue—it was the subject of discussion in Committee—to do this without trying to define as closely as possible the question of retirement from regular employment, which we also discussed in Committee, would open the case to abuse, or possible abuse, by landlords who might claim that they had the intention of occupying the house on retirement when they bought it, when they did not intend any such thing. The Government have accepted from the start, without any pressure—it was on their own initiative—that there was a need to preserve the rights of people who genuinely buy a home in

advance of retirement and who let it until such time as they retire.
At the same time, it is essential to guard against possible exploitation of the Case by the unscrupulous minority. Those landlords who have not retired and who cannot therefore claim possession under Case 10A are still able to apply to the court under Case 8 if they reasonably require the dwelling-house for their own use. This seems to the Government to give such people adequate rights without prejudicing the security of tenants.
As I argued on this and other matters in Committee, we are seeking to establish a reasonable balance between the two interests. There are existing homes to take account of—people who have brought up their families and lived in the dwelling-house for some years. This has to be weighed in the scales, too. If a person has indicated from the outset, through the procedure set out in the Bill, that the property is a retirement home, such a person is covered, subject to the discretion of the court—a discretion provided in the Bill before the end of Committee stage. If such a person has not notified the tenant, the court has a discretion to waive that fact when considering the application.
The home will be returned to the owner for retirement purposes, for which purpose he had declared his intention of buying the house in the first place. In the meantime, while it is let as a dwelling-house, subject to that, the tenant also has a right, in law, to protection, both as an unfurnished and furnished tenant. We think we have the right balance. Whatever may be the motivation of the hon. Gentleman, to do what he suggests would open the door to possible exploitation when that is not necessary. If we are people who have purchased homes specifically to retire to, which is the object of the case written into the Bill, our procedure covers that and there is no need for the amendment.

Mrs. Thatcher: My hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) made our intention very clear and put the case extremely plainly. We believe that we were justified in pursuing the case he put forward, and we think that the Minister's attitude is quite wrong. Since, however, it is likely to be a period of three months before we can take positive action to put our beliefs into action,


we shall not detain the House on the amendment any further tonight.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Freeson: I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 3, line 43, at end insert:
'Provided that if the court is of the opinion that, notwithstanding that the condition in paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) above is not complied with, it is just and equitable to make an order for possession of the dwelling-house, the court may dispense with the requirements of either or both of those paragraphs, as the case may require'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment it will be convenient to take amendment No. 8, in Clause 2, in page 3A, line 29, at end insert:
'Provided that if the court is of the opinion that, notwithstanding that the condition in paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) above is not complied with, it is just and equitable to make an order for possession of the dwelling-house, the court may dispense with the requirements of either or both of those paragraphs, as the case may require',
Government Amendment No. 9, and Government Amendment No. 15.

Mr. Freeson: The effect of these amendments is to fit the new Clause 18 introduced in Committee into the Bill in a more appropriate place. That new clause related only to Case 10—the temporarily absent owner-occupier—but these amendments extend the same provisions to Case 10A relating to the retirement home case.
The Government accepted in Committee that the requirement that a notice must be served by a relevant date if a landlord is to have the absolute right to recover his home or to gain possession of his retirement home might result in some cases in the loss of that home through misadventure. This is particularly true in transitional cases, where the landlord has let furnished before the Bill comes into force in the belief that he would be able to recover possession without difficulty. The Bill already provides means for such a landlord to preserve his right to regain possession.
Paragraph 6 of Schedule 1 allows a landlord to serve a notice within the first six months of the Bill coming into force. Paragraph 5 of the same schedule provides that when a temporarily absent owner-occupier has already served notice under Section 79—that is, the section in

Part VI which prevents the rent tribunal suspending the operation of a notice to quit if the landlord wants the dwelling for his own use—that notice shall apply for the purposes of Case 10 when the tenancy becomes a protected tenancy by virtue of the Bill. But even so, landlords may well be abroad and, despite the publicity which will be given to the Bill's through consulates, and organisations which look after the interests of people living and working abroad, there may be some landlords who will not hear about these provisions in time to take the appropriate action.
These amendments therefore provide that where the appropriate notice has not been served, but the other conditions of the case apply, the court may grant an order for possession if they think this would be just and equitable. The court is given the power to disregard failure to serve under condition (a) on the present tenant or under condition (b) on a previous tenant. This is necessary to cover the situation where the landlord let his home without notice to a protected tenant who left willingly, and subsequently let again without notice to another tenant who refused to leave without an order from the court to do so when the landlord needed the dwelling for his own use. The power of the court to waive the failure to serve notice under the second tenancy would be of no use to the landlord if the court could not also waive the failure to meet the condition in subparagraph (b) of the case.
These are the reasons for introducing the amendments.

Mr. Rossi: If it is said that we have not had much success on Report in persuading the Government of the error of some of their ways, at least it can be said that we did make some headway in Committee. The group of amendments now before us is the result of persistence by the Opposition in tabling a number of amendments to achieve the objective.
The Minister referred to new Clause 18, which is now Clause 11 in the Bill and which is sought to be removed by Amendment No. 15. That clause relates only to Case 10. It is one of a group of new clauses or amendments all with the same objective and relating to Case 10, Case 11, Case 10A and Case 11A in the Third Schedule to the 1968 Act.
We intended in Committee to give the court the power to waive notices where they have not been served for some reason and where it is just and equitable that those notices should be waived. This was the way we argued the matter on the earlier occasion. In fact, we said that it would be quite wrong that a man could be deprived of his home because he failed to serve a scrap of paper within a time limit laid down by the Government. The Government have now seen the justice of that argument and are content to leave it to the court to waive that requirement which the Government previously stipulated where it is just and equitable to dispense with the requirement.
Therefore, we are happy to accept the amendment, and we thank the hon. Gentleman for acceding to our arguments.

Mr. Tyler: I, too, wish to express appreciation to the Minister for fulfilling the assurance which he gave in Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

1.0 a.m.

Mr. Freeson: I beg to move Amendment No. 3, in page 3, line 57, at end insert:

'Case 10C

Where the dwelling house is let under a tenancy for a term of years certain not exceeding 12 months and—

(a) not later than the relevant date the landlord gave notice in writing to the tenant that possession might be recovered under this Case; and
(b) at some time within the period of 12 months ending on the relevant date, the dwelling house was subject to such a tenancy as is referred to in section 2(1) (bb) of this Act;

and for the purposes of this Case a tenancy shall be treated as being for a term of years certain notwithstanding that it is liable to determination by re-entry or on the happening of any event other than the giving of notice by the landlord to determine the term'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, we are to consider the following:

Amendment No. 4, in page 3, line 57, at end insert:

'Case 10C

Where the dwelling-house is let under a tenancy for a term of years certain not exceeding 12 months and—


(a) not later than the relevant date the landlord gave notice in writing to the tenant that possession might be recovered under this Case; and
(b) the dwelling-house was, at some time within the period of 12 months ending on the relevant date, occupied by a person of a kind specified in paragraph (bb) of subsection (1) of section 2 of this Act and was so occupied under a tenancy granted by a specified institution; and for the purposes of this Case "specified" shall, in relation to institutions, have the same meaning as in the said paragraph (bb);

and further for the purposes of this Case a tenancy shall be treated as being for a term of years certain notwithstanding that it is liable to determination by re-entry or on the happening of any event other than the giving of notice by the landlord to determine the term'.

Government Amendment No. 48, and Amendment No. 10, in page 4, line 17, at end insert:

'Case 11C

Where the dwelling-house is let under a tenancy for a specified period not exceeding 12 months and—

(a) not later than the relevant date the landlord gave notice in writing to the tenant that possession might be recovered under this Case; and
(b) the dwelling-house was, at some time within the period of 12 months ending on the relevant date, occupied by a person of a kind specified in paragraph (bb) of subsection (1) of section 2 of this Act and was so occupied under a tenancy granted by a specified institution; and for the purposes of this Case "specified" shall, in relation to institutions, have the same meaning as in the said paragraph (bb);

and further for the purposes of this Case a tenancy shall be treated as being for a specified period notwithstanding that it is liable to termination by forfeiture or on the happening of any event other than the giving of notice by the landlord to terminate the tenancy'.

Mr. Freeson: This amendment introduces a new case for possession into Part II of Schedule 3 of the 1968 Rent Act. The Government agreed in Committee to the inclusion of the case on these lines, and this amendment is the result.
The case enables on educational institution specified for this purpose by the Secretary of State for Education to let accommodation for a short term to tenants who are not students in the certainty that they can recover possession again should the tenant not wish to leave at the end of the term. This case will solve the problems of several colleges and universities, in particular, which maintain supplies of accommodation for the use of post-graduate students. Inevitably the


number of such students fluctuates from year to year and sometimes voids occur.
At present, of course, the educational institution can let short term until the accommodation is again needed for the use of a post-graduate student. We understand that these lettings are quite frequently made to newly arrived members of the teaching or administrative staff of the institution or another college or institution in the area. At other times, the lettings are made to members of the general public. In either case, the institution will in future be letting on protected tenancies and without this case there would be no way in which the accommodation could be recovered for its proper use when needed.

Mr. Rossi: Once again, I rise to thank the Minister for acceding to our request in Committee.
I point out simply that our Amendment No. 10 repeats the amendment that we considered in Committee and is repetitive of Government Amendments Nos. 4 and 48, subject only to a slight variation in wording. As the Government have tabled an amendment in identical terms to our own, we shall not press it.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: I beg to move Amendment No. 5, in page 3, line 57, at end insert:
'In Part II of Schedule 3 to the Rent Act 1968, the following Case shall be inserted after Case 14—

"Case 15

Where, in respect of the property concerned, planning approval has been given and remains effective for a change of user, provided that not less than six months notice has been given in writing to the tenant by the landlord that possession might be recovered under this Case." '.

The object of the amendment is to provide for the situation which arises where planning permission is given for a change of user. I have to declare an interest in that I am the owner of property which is let furnished. I believe that this matter was discussed in Committee, but I have not been able to ascertain whether the Government gave any undertaking about it. I feel that, if no provision is made for this eventuality, it will be a serious gap, and I hope that some provision, either on the lines of my own amendment or something similar, will find its way into the Bill.

I have in mind two cases where a provision of this kind is needed. The first is where planning permission for a change of user has been agreed for a property as it stands. The type of property, which might have furnished lettings in it but for which planning permission for a change of user is likely to be given, will not be the common or garden terrace property or a house originally built for private family occupation. It is much more likely to be a house of an institutional character.

In my view, it would be undesirable if a property of this kind were frozen and not made available for the community, even where planning permission was granted for its conversion, for instance, into a home for handicapped people, into a hostel or possibly, especially in the case of a completely isolated large property on a country site, for use as a club for recreational purposes, a golf club, or something of that kind.

The Bill must not be the cause of ossification so that communities cannot put their assets to the best use as circumstances change. The situation might arise where one tenant with security in a furnished tenancy in a corner of a large property of the kind that I have in mind sought to drive a hard bargain, using the protection offered by the Bill not ultimately to retain security of tenure but to be able to sell the vacant possession as dearly as he can.

It may be that I have misunderstood the terms of the proposed legislation and that such a situation cannot arise, but I believe that it could, and that would be highly undesirable.

The other instance is where slum property or property which is urgently in need of demolition is being lived in by people in the sort of wretched furnished tenancies which exist in parts of Kensington. It would be undesirable if the normal processes of urban renewal were held up because people were able to cling to wretched and unfit tenancies as a result of this legislation.

Obviously difficulties would arise if large numbers of families lost the security that the Bill intends to give them through properties being taken for demolition: but it would be the decision of the local planning authorities whether and when that situation should arise.

I should like to draw attention to the fact that the amendment allows for six months' notice to be given to the tenant in the event of vacant possession being required to give effect to a change of use. I believe that since the decision on the continuance of the property as furnished accommodation or some other use will rest with the statutory planning authority in the area, this is no major departure from the spirit of the Bill. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will welcome it.

Mr. Kaufman: The hon. Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) asked whether in Committee we had given an assurance when the matter was debated. I do not think that we gave an assurance, for reasons which I shall expound shortly.
I accept that the hon. Gentleman sees this as a possible method of bringing about urban renewal, but I fear that it does not conform with the way that we believe urban renewal should be accomplished. In fact, I think that the whole House would agree that urban renewal is far better accomplished through those measures of the Housing Bill, on which both sides are united, which I hope will shortly be enacted and which carries out the views of all hon. Members on how urban renewal, including properties occupied by furnished tenants, should be carried out in stress areas.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood my argument. I think that he ought to have included a double negative. I am trying to prevent a situation where the Bill stands in the way of renewal which the local authority wishes to sanction.

Mr. Kaufman: I hesitate to be discourteous to the hon. Gentleman, but I must say that I did not misunderstand his argument, particularly since, with respect to him, I heard it put forward as eloquently in Committee as he has put it forward when an identical provision was proposed for the Bill and rejected by the Committee. We rejected it because its content runs contrary to the principles of the Bill.
The amendment appears to be an attempt to give the development potential of property priority over the statutory

right of a tenant to continued occupation of his home. It is an amendment that would apply to all regulated tenancies, but it may be presented as particularly relevant to regulated furnished tenancies because of the developer's practice of buying premises in advance of need and letting them temporarily on furnished tenancies until they are redeveloped.
It may be claimed that if this is no longer possible such premises will stand empty in the period between acquisition and redevelopment, but the amendment is in no way specifically related to such a situation and would thus—although I know that this is not what the hon. Gentleman intends—be open to wholesale abuse. It would allow, for example, any landlord who applied for and obtained planning permission to evict his tenants, but there is no requirement that the change of use should be effected after possession has been granted. That being so, a landlord could get planning permission, get rid of his tenants and then not pursue the project.
The Department has been told of cases in which long-resident unfurnished tenants have been exposed to the worst kind of stress when ownership of their dwelling houses passes to the sort of landlord who is intent on eviction to allow for subsequent development or sale with vacant possession. This case would give such landlords a legal right to indulge in such practices. The requirement that a landlord must give at least six months' notice of his intention to claim possession under the case would, in our opinion, do nothing to mitigating its damaging effects.
I assure the hon. Gentleman that it gives me no pleasure to reject his amendments, as I have had to do on two occasions, but I fear I must say that we cannot accept what he has proposed.

Mr. Rees-Davies: We heard an identical speech from an identical brief, almost word for word, in Committee. The Minister made the same point at the time.
The whole point of the amendment is to try to get from the Government an assurance that they looked at this problem and tried to do something about it. It is obviously desirable in proper and appropriate cases that those who obtain planning consent to enable the


development of property to take place should be able to obtain their property with vacant possession to enable that work to be carried out.
This is a case in which it was incumbent upon the Government to bring forward the proper amendment on Report and introduce the point that the Minister made in Commitee, namely, that the person who obtained a planning consent had to carry that into effect. I made that point in Committee, and nothing would have been easier than for the Government to table an amendment to meet the criticisms that were made.
It appears that we are to have another Rent Bill in the event that the Labour Party is returned to power at the next election. This amendment will be a happy dream for Government Members to take away and think about, and the next time the Minister makes a speech on this subject, which may be in 10 or 15 years' time, he may find that his dreams are no longer realistic because by that time we in turn will have brought in amending legislation to deal with the hotch-potch of trouble that the Bill will produce. We shall have to introduce measures to put right many omissions, if nothing else. One of the first which I am sure my right hon. Friend will look at will be the problem of seeing that planning permission can be given proper effect to, to enable renewals to take place and other matters to be properly dealt with.

1.15 a.m.

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: The Government have exploited the difficulties caused by the fact that the debates in Committee were not readily available to back benchers, and have made use of the fact that my amendment does not cover the point raised in Committee in order to defeat it here. This is an illegitimate device to defeat a back bencher who has made a valid point. It does no credit to the Under-Secretary that he has smugly produced the same argument. He ought to realise that my point was sincere and that his point was merely a drafting amendment to my proposal.
The hon. Gentleman has done himself no credit in the way that he has attacked

the amendment. Had he wished to resist it simply on the ground that he wishes to ossify the housing situation, well and good; let him do that. But to pretend that he has to reject the clause as drafted, on his own grounds, as he rejected it in Committee, because he cannot find a way of amending it to cover his point, which could not have been in anyone's mind, is not a valid argument. The Minister has not acquitted himself well in this case. The point remains one which will have to be attended to in the end.

Amendment negatived.

Amendments made: No. 7, in page 3A, line 11, leave out 'lets' and insert 'let'.

No. 8, in page 3A, line 29, at end insert:
'Provided that if the court is of the opinion that, notwithstanding that the condition in paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) above is not complied with, it is just and equitable to make an order for possession of the dwelling-house, the court may dispense with the requirements of either or both of those paragraphs, as the case may require'.

No. 9, in page 4, line 17, at end insert:
'(3) At the end of Case 10 in Part II of Schedule 3 to the Rent Act 1968 and at the end of Case 11 in Part 11 of Schedule 3 to the Rent (Scotland) Act 1971 there shall be added the following proviso—
Provided that if the court is of the opinion that, notwithstanding that the condition in paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) above is not complied with, it is just and equitable to make an order for possession of the dwelling-house, the court may dispense with the requirements of either or both of those paragraphs, as the case may require"'.

No. 48, in page 4, line 17, at end insert:

'Case 11C

Where the dwelling-house is let under a tenancy for a specified period not exceeding 12 months and—

(a) not later than the relevant date the landlord gave notice in writing to the tenant that possession might be recovered under this Case; and
(b) at some time within the period of 12 months ending on the relevant date the dwelling-house was subject to such a tenancy as is referred to in section 2(1)(bb) of this Act;

and for the purposes of this Case a tenancy shall be treated as being for a specified period

(i) of less than 12 months, if it is determinable at the option of the landlord (other than in the event of an irritancy being


incurred) before the expiration of 12 months from the commencement of the period of the tenancy, and
(ii) of 12 months or more, if it confers on the tenant an option for renewal of the tenancy for a period which, together with the original period, amounts to 12 months or more, and it is not determinable as mentioned in paragraph (i) above'.—[Mr. Kaufman.]

(2) In section 80 of that Act (reduction of period of notice on account of lessee's default) at the end of paragraph (c) of subsection (2) there shall be added the words "or


(d) that the condition of any furniture provided for the use of the lessee under the contract has deteriorated owing to any ill-treatment by the lessee or any person residing or lodging with him".'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we are to take sub-amendment (a) in line 6, after 'by', insert:
'any act or omission of'.
Government Amendment No. 49, Amendment No. 23, in page 11, line 11, [Schedule 1], after 'by', insert:
'any act or omission of'.
and Amendment No. 24, in page 11, line 13, [Schedule 1], after 'by', insert
'any act or omission of'.

The Solicitor-General: The House may have noticed that my part in these proceedings has consisted of long silences interspersed with brief contributions. If this speech is the exception to the rule, I trust that it will prove only marginally so.
Section 80 of the Rent Act 1968 permits application to the rent tribunal for a reduction in the suspension period of a notice to quit where the lessee is abusing that protection. At present the section does not specifically entitle the lessor to seek a reduction where the lessee is misusing the furniture. The amendment inserts that entitlement. I understand that it arose out of an exchange of views in Committee.
Amendment No. 49 has the same effect in relation to the Rent (Scotland) Act 1971.
As I understand it, the purpose of sub-amendment (a) to Amendment 13 is to include as a ground for reducing the suspension period not only the situation where the tenant has misused the furniture but where he has permitted it to deteriorate by failing to take positive care—that is to say, where his sin is a sin of omission.
Parallel to these provisions there is a provision in the Bill to deal with

Clause 7

FURNISHED LETTINGS: AMENDMENTS RELATING TO SECURITY OF TENURE

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, Amendment No. 13, in page 6, line 48, at end insert:

protected tenancies. Grounds for possession there are contained in Schedule 3 to the 1968 Act, and Schedule 1 of the Bill has introduced into that Schedule 3, case 3A which again gives a ground for possession where the tenant has misused the furniture.

Without seeking to anticipate the argument which may be used by right hon. and hon. Members of the Opposition, Amendments Nos. 23 and 24 seek to add a similar provision there. That is to say that as an additional ground for possession there shall be a situation where the tenant has permitted the furniture to deteriorate by reason of an omission.

As I understand it, the point between the two sides is a narrow one: where should the balance lie between protecting the landlord's legitimate interest in his property and protecting the tenant's legitimate interest in his home? Already we propose that the protection for the landlord should extend beyond vandalism to any case where there has been ill treatment of the furniture. If the landlord wishes to protect himself beyond that, he can insert in the tenancy a covenant to the effect that the tenant shall carry out certain specified steps to protect the furniture.

Where the landlord does not do that, to say that the tenant shall be in danger of losing his home if the furniture deteriorates in consequence of an omission—and, on the wording of the sub-amendment, any omission—would be to impose a very exacting burden upon him with a very onerous penalty if he fails to discharge it. In every home there is some damage to furniture which would not arise if everyone observed the highest standards of care and no one made any


omission, but for most of us the penalty is not to lose our home.

The question is: where do we strike the balance? Amendment No. 13 seeks to accommodate what was said in Committee, and I hope that the House will think that the balance is now struck in the right place.

Mr. Graham Page: The Solicitor-General is rather like the man at the top of the orchestra at timpani who, every half an hour during the symphony, strikes the triangle with a ping—and that is all he does. I had hoped that the hon. and learned Gentleman's ping would be very favourable this time.
I agree with Amendments No. 13 and 49 and will say nothing further about them. I had hoped that the Solicitor-General would be able to welcome the sub-amendment to Amendment No. 13 and also Amendments Nos. 23 and 24. I believe that he has misunderstood the purpose of the insertion of the words "any act or omission". He talked about permitting a deterioration. That is not what the Bill now says—particularly the case in the schedule. The Bill speaks of deterioration by ill treatment. It was said in Committee that the word "ill treatment" implies positive action. This is where we object to it being treated as just that. It may be that deterioration arises by culpable neglect. It has been recognised, for example, that failure to lag water pipes may lead to a burst in cold weather, whereas a good tenant treating the property correctly would lag. It is ill treatment by failure to do the things a good tenant would ordinarily do that we want included in this case.
It will be very difficult for any landlord, when he finds furniture damaged, to prove that the damage has arisen because of an act of positive ill treatment. There may be many cases where the tenant should look after the furniture and should not damage it by acts of omission or neglect. If such conduct continues, that is the sort of conduct one should have in mind in this case—a case that is supposed to be on the same ground as neglect and waste to the structure in the case of the unfurnished letting.
As the hon. and learned Gentleman will know, in the case of the unfurnished

letting the word "waste" is used. "Waste" means neglect as well as an act of commission. To put the phrase "any act or omission" after "ill treatment" is taking the matter no further than is recognised in the case of the unfurnished dwelling when the word "waste" is used, because "waste" does not necessarily mean a negative act. I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to look at this again.
I am sure that the case will not be as effective for unfurnished dwellings as the existing case in the Rent Act is in relation to furnished dwellings, in giving toe landlord the right to apply to the court for possession when his property is being ill treated, remembering that when he does apply to the court this is one of the cases in which the court uses its discretion, but I think it is being precluded from using its discretion by the term "ill treatment" which implies such a positive act.

Mr. Lawrence: I rise only to add one thing to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page). I did not understand the expression "ill treatment" to be intended merely as a description of a positive act. There does not seem to be any point in pursuing the case which my right hon. Friend is making if the hon. and learned Gentleman means "ill treatment" to cover an act or omission, even though that is not specifically so stated. Therefore, may I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to give us a definition of "ill treatment", when it may be that we shall then all be happy?

The Solicitor-General: A formal definition of the term "ill treatment" is clearly something which the hon. Gentleman cannot expect me to give. This is something which the courts obviously work out over a period of time. Anything which would now attempt to narrow that would be out of place. Clearly what is between us is a matter of degree. If what is intended by the sub-amendment is what was stated by the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page), that is not the effect of the sub-amendment which has been put down. That speaks of "any … omission". A tenant who was guilty of any omission in consequence of which furniture deteriorated would be in danger of losing his home.

Mr. Graham Page: It means ill treatment by omission—and again I use the lagging of pipes as an example. It does not mean any omission. It means any ill treatment by omission.

The Solicitor-General: That does not seem to be what the amendment says. It says "any act or omission". But I think it is becoming clear what is in the minds of all of us. If there is to be some clear positive obligation on the tenant to take certain steps to preserve the furniture, that ought to be stated in the covenant in the tenancy. Beyond that, it is very much a matter of what the courts would regard as being proper treatment. Certainly, the intention is not that there should be any very high duty of positive attention to the furniture. It is a little difficult to see what in furniture is the equivalent of the lagging of pipes.
1.30 a.m.
If the right hon. Gentleman says that, of course, the courts will interpret this in a reasonable way because they have a discretion, that would be a justification for almost unlimited obligations. The scheme of the Bill, like previous schemes in relation to landlord and tenant law, is that the court shall have a discretion when certain clearly defined situations arise, and to say that we need not define the situation very clearly, that we can leave it fairly loose because the court has a discretion, is not the way in which Parliament has approached these matters in the past.

Mr. Lawrence: There is a charade—perhaps it is unkind to call it that—which is followed in the courts when the judge says, "Parliament in its wisdom clearly intended this or that". That presupposes that the juriciary expects some indication of intention from the legislature. For the hon. and learned Gentleman to say, "Let us leave a definition to the courts, and they will work it out in due course" is not to do that which the judiciary normally expects the legislature to do.
May I, therefore, press the matter a little more closely? The line between us, as the hon. and learned Gentleman says, is narrowing fast, but there remains a lack of clarity on what is in the Government's mind in opposing our sub-amendment (a) and proposing their Amendment No. 13. Do they have in mind something wider than a positive act in the meaning

of the phrase "ill treatment"? If it be their intention that the expression "ill treatment" should mean something wider than a positive act, I think we could all be happy.

The Solicitor-General: I think that the furthest I can go to make the hon. Gentleman happy—of course, I like to make people happy—is to say that it would be an obligation on the tenant to use the furniture properly. I cannot go beyond that. It is not the intention to impose any high positive duty upon him, or, indeed, any positive duty. If that does not satisfy the hon. Gentleman, that is the issue between the two sides, I fear. Beyond that, it seems to me that a great deal can be done by leaving it to the courts.

Mr. Page: Let us suppose that the tenant leaves a cigarette on a nicely polished table. That is not, I suggest, an act of ill treatment. It may be an act of neglect or default, but not what one understands necessarily as ill treatment. I should have thought that that sort of act of omission—omitting to pick up his cigarette again and smoke it—was not necessarily covered by "ill treatment".

The Solicitor-General: I could not conceive of a clearer act of ill treatment. I am delighted to see that the right hon. Lady the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) supports me there. I suspect that the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) is getting into the kind of semantic difficulties which arose in a different context in the Compton Report—that something is not torture unless one enjoys doing it. It seems to me that the example which he gave absolutely makes my case. I could not imagine a clearer illustration.

Mr. Lawrence: May I try again?

The Solicitor-General: The hon. Gentleman is being very trying.

Mr. Lawrence: I shall not be hurt by that remark. I take comfort from the hon. and learned Gentleman's desire always to make others happy, so I shall not be made unhappy by it.
There must be a duty on a tenant to take reasonable care of furniture. Therefore, at the very least, ill treatment must mean no negligence. Will the hon. and


learned Gentleman give us at least that, that that is part of the intention in the meaning of the expression "ill treatment"—no negligence?

The Solicitor-General: I think that we have taken this question as far as we can profitably take it. No, I do not equate ill treatment with no negligence. There might well be situations in which we should want to say that something fell into one category and not into the other. I am sorry, but I do not think that we can carry it further.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 9

FURNISHED LETTINGS: AMENDMENTS RELATING TO SECURITY OF TENURE

Amendment made: No. 49, in page 8, line 21, at end insert:
'(2) In section 95 of that Act (reduction of period of notice on account of lessee's default) at the end of paragraph (c) of subsection (2) there shall be added the words "or
(d) that the condition of any furniture provided for the use of the lessee under the contract has deteriorated owing to any ill-treatment by the lessee or any person residing or lodging with him".'.—[Mr. Freeson.]

Clause 11

COURTS DISCRETION TO WAIVE NOTICES

Amendment made: No. 15, in page 9, line 8, leave out Clause 11.—[Mr. Freeson.]

Clause 12

INTERPRETATION

Amendment made: No. 35, in page 9, line 39, after 'Act' insert:
'other than sections (Rent Allowances) and (Rent allowances in Scotland) above'.—[Mr. Freeson.]

Clause 13

TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS AND REPEALS

Amendment made: No. 36, in page 9 line 50, at end add:
'but, in the case of the enactments specified in Part II of that Schedule, only with effect from the day appointed for the purposes of subsection (1) of sections (Rent allowances) and

(Rent allowances in Scotland) above'.—[Mr. Freeson.]

Clause 14

SHORT TITLE, CITATION, APPLICATION, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT

Mr. Allason: I beg to move Amendment No. 34, in page 10, line 17, leave out 'two weeks' and insert 'one month'.
As it stands, the Bill is to come into effect two weeks after the Royal Assent, but it cannot be printed and it will be difficult for the public to discover what it is all about. There have been no printed copies of the OFFICIAL REPORT. All this would be bad enough with a simple Bill, but with a complicated measure like this it is far worse. It is difficult to determine the effects of the Bill because it is principally legislation by reference. Whole sections of the Rent Act are amended and people will find great difficulty in reading those amendments into the Act.
We have debated the Bill for 45 hours and so far there has been no filibustering. We have given the Bill careful consideration. Perhaps the Government will say how many new rules will have to be made before the Bill takes effect. New Clause 12 contains a requirement for statutory instruments to be laid and, presumably, since that clause was produced only two or three days ago the drafting of the instruments will not be far advanced.
We discussed in Committee instructions to rent officers and various other matters which we were told were not far advanced. It will be interesting to know how well prepared we shall be 14 days from tomorrow. The Minister promised that there would be explanatory leaflets. I hope that there will also be newspaper advertisements. I do not know how many issues of the Solicitors Journal will be required to explain the effects of the Bill. A great many solicitors do not follow the deliberations of this House, but instead wait to see what they want to know in the Solicitors Journal.
Some of the provisions being drafted now to take effect in the fairly near future could include the question of retirement homes, winter lettings, and the solicitor will suddenly find that from two weeks' time he will have to put a clause into an agreement. If the landlord is to be


protected that does not give him much time. We are asking for a period that is essential in order to give those who must operate the legislation a chance to understand what it is all about.

Mr. Lawrence: It is a matter of common fairness to all parties that those affected by the Bill should have a reasonable opportunity to digest it and take the necessary steps to protect themselves or deal effectively with it. The social contract does not yet seem to have spread to printing copies of the Bill. Many people will have gone away on holiday and may well not be back until the middle of August.
The original period in the Bill was one month. I ask that those who drafted the Bill, who must have had good reason for inserting that period, should bring their reasoning powers to bear and restore it.

Mr. Freeson: It is true that we originally intended the Bill to come into force one month after the Royal Assent. However, we were impressed by the criticism generally, and in particular in another place, that a delay of a month would be unnecessarily long and would place tenants who are under threat of imminent eviction in greater jeopardy. Therefore, by a Government amendment in another place, we reduced the interval between Royal Assent and implementation of the Act to a fortnight.
That period will give the Government time to mount a vigorous publicity campaign to explain the effects of the Bill and ensure that both landlords and tenants know exactly where they stand under the law. We are aiming to have newspaper and television advertising in the period leading up to and immediately after the commencement date of the Bill.
To extend the interval would be unacceptable. The Bill is urgent. An essential part of its purpose is to protect those tenants who are at this moment in danger of losing their homes. I would not wish to have to explain to them that the Bill came too late to help them, if we extended the interval as suggested. It has been suggested that a fortnight is not long enough for a Bill as complicated as this to become known. If the problems are as serious as the Opposition suggest, two weeks will not resolve

them. It is a complicated Bill but it is also urgent.
1.45 a.m.
A full-scale publicity campaign, arrangements for which are already in hand, will be set in motion the moment the Bill receives the Royal Assent, and this will ensure that no one is taken unawares, despite the printing experiences, which are bound to have repercussions on the circulation of the Bill. The campaign can be supplemented by additional publicity measures as and when necessary.
I intend to issue, as soon as practicable, an up-to-date version of the publication produced some years ago in the wake of the original Rent Act, called, "Your Rent and You". It will incorporate the changes made by the Bill and circulate information about it and the Rent Acts generally in a form which will be easily understood. The Government cannot accept further delay. The sooner we get the Bill into operation to protect those it is intended to protect, the better for all concerned.

Mr. Graham Page: The hon. Gentleman did not answer the question about the statutory instruments which require to be made under the Bill. Is he sure he will be able to publish them by the time the Bill comes into operation? It needs to be supplemented by orders. Can he assure us that a copy of the Bill will be available to the public? I know that the situation is difficult but we managed it in Parliament over the past weeks. It is even more important to see that the administrators, landlords and tenants know what is in the Bill.
Yesterday, the House passed a Northern Ireland order without the parent Bill being available, even in duplicate. No hon. Member could have known by referring to any document whether the statutory instrument was being validly made or not. Such a situation could arise with regard to this Bill. We could have statutory instruments being made when copies of the Bill are not available.
But that may not be quite as important as having a copy of the Bill available to the public before it comes into operation. I appreciate that the Minister wants the Bill in operation as quickly as possible, but I want an assurance that somehow or other he will have copies available to the public, who have to know about it.

Mr. Freeson: I understand that the statutory instruments are not required to be issued within the two weeks—or month—between the Royal Assent and the coming into force of the measure. We are all aware of the printing difficulties that the Government and Parliament have been experiencing. I shall do all I can to get copies of the Bill to places where it is important that it should be available. The most important thing for me is to ensure that there is adequate, clear and general publicity and information about the essentials of the Bill. This situation is not peculiar to this Bill. I shall do my best to get details of the Bill in its final published form to areas where it is most important to get the Bill as soon as possible after it has received the Royal Assent.

Mr. Walter Clegg: What will be the position of someone who suffers because what will then be the Act is not available?

Mr. Freeson: The hon. Member is so well aware of the legal position that that was almost a rhetorical question. I have undertaken to do my best in the difficult circumstances in which we are all operating. This situation applies to other measures going through the House and also having important issues of legal interpretation.

Mr. Clegg: May I press the Minister on this issue? He says that he is doing his best, but surely that is not enough. Has there even been a situation when a Bill has been passed by Parliament but subsequently not been available to the public? If so, I should very much like to hear when it was.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Freeson: I beg to move Amendment No. 46, in page 10, line 19, leave out '5, 6 and 7' and insert:
'(Advance application for registration of new rent) (1) and (2), 5, 6, 7 (Rent allowances and (Power of court in action for possession to reduce period of notice to quit) (1) and (2)'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we are to take Amendment No. 47.

Mr. Freeson: These amendments are consequential upon the introduction of the provision on the advance application of rent or rent allowances and the power of the court to reduce the period of notice

to quit, a subject with which we dealt earlier this evening.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 47, in page 10, line 21, leave out '8 and 9' and insert:
'(Advance application for registration of new rent) (3) and (4), 8, 9 (Rent allowances in Scotland) and (Power of court in action for possession to reduce period of notice to quit) (3)'.—[Mr. Freeson.]

Schedule 1

CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS OF RENT ACT

Amendment proposed: No. 30, in page 11, line 6, leave out 'Case' and insert 'Cases'.—[Mr. Rossi.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Amendment No. 31, in page 11, line 17, at end insert—

'Case 3 B

Where in the case of a protected tenancy or a statutory furnished tenancy any furniture provided for use under the tenancy has been disposed of by the tenant or any person residing or lodging with him or any subtenant of his'.

Mr. Clegg: These amendments are a reflection of a debate that we had in Committee. They would not have been selected had not an undertaking been given in Committee to consider the matter.
We have discussed the ill treatment of furniture in a furnished tenancy. In Committee I asked about furniture that was disposed of, but not by people of ill intent. We are talking about soft furnishings that may last for a lifetime—carpets and curtains and so on. [Interruption.] It will not help me to be quick for Labour Members to chunter. They would be better to let me say what I have to say quickly, or we shall be here all night. If they want an all-night sitting, I am prepared to have one.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that nobody provokes the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Clegg: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You show a proper appreciation of the situation, if I may say so.
What the Government have done in the Bill is to make a furnished tenancy a tenancy that can last for a lifetime, and not merely one lifetime but perhaps two or three lifetimes. During that time the initial furniture which was introduced into


the tenancy will be ill treated. It can also be replaced. Anybody who has practised in the law knows that furniture can be replaced not necessarily because of ill will on the part of the tenant. It might be that the curtains are fraying or the carpet is going. The tenant rolls them up, puts them in the corner and brings in new soft furnishings of his own.
I was told in Committee that where the furniture, particularly soft furnishings, was disposed of by the tenant there would be an implied covenant in the letting that this would be a breach of the tenancy and the landlord could thereby get possession. It is important that landlords should know how they stand in these matters.
I presume that because the Government have not tabled an amendment they are still saying that if a tenant disposes of the furniture which was part of the tenancy the landlord has grounds for possession. What I said in Committee was that this would be much better spelt out in the Bill so that there could be no misunderstanding of it.
I should like the Solicitor-General to reassure me that there are ample grounds for possession by a landlord against a tenant who wilfully disposes of a substantial amount of the furniture which was included in the original letting.

The Solicitor-General: The hon. Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg) has obviously appreciated the issue. The question is whether one leaves this matter to be dealt with under the existing Case 1—breach of an obligation—or adds an additional case of some kind. The matter has been considered and the feeling is that it would be better left to be dealt with under Case 1.
Most of the situations which the hon. Member envisages would clearly be breaches of implied conditions in the tenancy. If he is referring to a situation in which someone throws away a worn-out cushion, I would have thought that that would not amount to a breach of an obligation or of an implied covenant. I would hope, however, that in that situation the hon. Member would not feel that it should follow that the tenant would be in danger of losing his home.
In this kind of situation the courts would normally imply an obligation into

the tenancy to take sensible care of the furniture and not deliberately to steal it, make away with it or behave dishonestly in relation to it, but where what was done was sensible to do in all the circumstances, clearly there would not be any such obligation; it would not be an infringement and there would not be grounds for possession. One would hope that the matter would be better dealt with in that way than by spelling out a whole series of situations and missing out an essential one.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 54, in page 11, line 8, leave out 'furnished'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we are taking Amendment No. 55, in page 11, line 9, leave out 'furnished'.

Mr. Page: This relates to Case 3A, which we have discussed in part when talking of the phrase "ill treatment". This is the case which gives the landlord a right to apply to the court and the court a right to use its discretion in granting possession if there is ill treatment of the furniture.
2.0 a.m.
Case 3A as worded relates only to protected furnished tenancies or statutory furnished tenancies. It may be that there is furniture in an unfurnished letting. To be a furnished letting payment for furniture must be a substantial part of the rent. Again I quote the case of Woodward v Docherty, where the furniture consisted of all that was esential for living in the premises and yet payment for it was not taken to be a substantial part of the rent.
By removing the word "furnished" in the opening line of Case 3A I have endeavoured to apply 3A in a case where there is furniture provided by the landlord for use under the tenancy "to use the words in Case 3A. It has been represented to me that this was a rather clumsy way of making the amendment. It is an amendment which I assume cannot be refused by the Government. The principle must be absolutely acceptable. If it is, I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if you will accept a manuscript amendment which would be in better wording. I shall have to wait to see whether the Government accept it, but while I am on my feet


perhaps I may suggest what the better amendment would be. It would be in "page 11, line 8, Schedule 1, leave out from "Where" to "the" in line 9." I am sure that the principle must be accepted. If furniture is provided for the use of the tenant under the tenancy Case 3A should apply.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I inform the House that if the Minister is willing to accept the manuscript amendment it will be necessary for the right hon. Member to withdraw the amendment he has already moved.

Mr. Freeson: As a good Socialist co-operator I am glad to indicate our willingness to accept the intention of the amendment, and hopefully, the alternative wording.

Mr. Page: I am grateful to the Minister. I seem to have scored one mark tonight. Accordingly, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Manuscript amendment made: In page 11, line 8, Schedule 1, leave out from 'Where' to 'the' in line 9.—[Mr. Graham Page.]

Mr. Kaufman: I beg to move Amendment No. 45, in page 12, line 54, after 'tenant', insert
'under the regulated tenancy or any predecessor in title of his'.
This amendment tidies up an Opposition amendment accepted in Committee, which requires the rent officer in fixing a fair rent to disregard any improvement to the furniture carried out by the tenant. The amendment obliges the rent officer to take account of any improvement to the furniture carried out by any predecessor of the tenant as well as by the tenant himself. This is in line with the provisions in Section 46(3) of the main Act regarding improvements to the dwelling house carried out by the tenant or any predecessor in title.

Mr. Rossi: I am grateful to the Minister for improving the amendment we moved in Committee. I can understand that he wants it to be in line with the provisions regarding unfurnished accommodation. May I ask what value the improvement by a former tenant is likely

to be to a successor tenant, having regard to the nature of the furniture?

Mr. Kaufman: The hon. Gentleman has asked me a question which I am unable to answer.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Allason: I beg to move Amendment No. 25, in page 13, line 43, leave out from 'dwelling-house' to end of line 44 and insert:
'may contain the prescribed particulars with regard to such furniture, and must do so if so required by either party'.
Except where there is a resident owner, the rents of furnished homes will be set by the rent officer in the first place and possibly by the rent assessment committee. When someone wishes to rent, he will have the alternative either of finding out what sort of rent he can get before he decides whether to rent, or of obtaining a tenant and then, having agreed the terms of the tenancy with the tenant, he will go to the rent officer and find out the rent.
I suggest the latter case is fairly unlikely. It is much more likely, in the case of somebody with furnished premises to let not in his own home, that he will have the notion to find out what the rent is likely to be and will decide whether it is worth putting his furniture at risk or whether he would prefer to take his furniture away and to let unfurnished.
There are considerable risks in letting furnished—not only in regard to having cigarette burns on table tops, but in other respects too. It may be that the tenant is already lined up, but before the agreement is signed they will want to find out through the rent officer what the rent is to be.
In those circumstances the Bill requires prescribed particulars in regard to any such furniture, and that means a full inventory. A full inventory is usually undertaken by a professional estate agent; it is a long, complicated and expensive job. If neither landlord nor tenant decides he wants to go to the expense of having an inventory, the rent officer can look at the condition of the furniture, judge its worth, in exactly the same way as the rent tribunal does at the moment. It looks at furniture, it knows what is there


and is immediately able to size it up and judge a rent.
It is not necessary for the rent officer to have an inventory except—here we have the suspicious mind of the Minister coming in—where somebody is going to cheat. We must guard against that situation. But where we have delay while waiting for the rent officer to assess the rent, if they do not want to go to the expense of an inventory, why should they? If the rent officer thinks there is a fiddle going on he can insist on an inventory being taken. But it is not necessary to have an inventory—not a careful, precise inventory, at any rate. This amendment, therefore, gives permission to avoid the expense of an inventory if the parties do not wish to have one. If any of the parties wants one, it shall be required.
I hope that this is a useful amendment, which will save money, principally to the tenant, because ultimately it is the tenant who will have to meet the considerable expense of preparing the inventory.

Mr. Emery: Normally, I agree with nearly all that my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) says, but in this case I find some of his arguments not altogether convincing.
All too often, an agreement that an inventory is not necessary is excellent at the time, because neither party expects a dispute to arise. But where a rent has been fixed, the tenant leaves and another tenant comes in with the same fixed rent, without an inventory two difficulties may arise.
If there is a dispute and there is no inventory, the dispute may become that much more difficult. There will then be an argument about what would have been on the inventory if one had been made.
Secondly, in the case of an incoming tenant at the same fixed rent, without an inventory there is the temptation for a bad landlord to remove some furniture about which the new tenant knows nothing.
I appreciate my hon. Friend's argument that in many cases where there is no dispute, savings can be made. But what worries me about the amendment is that all to often, although there is no suspicion initially that a dispute may arise, it may arise later and be made

that much worse because no inventory exists.
I wonder whether my hon. Friend can put my mind at rest about those two problems.

Mr. Allason: In the case where there is no inventory and a dispute arises, does it occur to my hon. Friend that the loser will be the landlord? It will be very difficult for him to prove that six chairs have been chopped up and removed when there is no inventory listing those chairs. That, therefore, is to the tenant's advantage.
As for the shady landlord who removes furniture, of course there will always be rogues—but the rent officer will know the one or two rogues who let down the good name of landlords. In their cases, he will be able to insist on an inventory being made in the first place. The vast majority of landlords are responsible and would not indulge in the practices which my hon. Friend suggests.

Mr. Kaufman: Following that exchange of mutual courtesies, may I tell the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) that his amendment gives him the opportunity to traverse some of the ground that the went over on related topics in Committee.
I feel that I should repeat what I said in Committee, namely that it is a necessary complication for a certificate to contain those particulars which the rent officer must take into account when determining the fair rent.
2.15 a.m.
If furniture is to be provided, it is clearly necessary in each case for the rent officer to know how much and what kind is to be provided, and its condition, if he is to determine the fair rent appropriate to the proposed regulated furnished tenancy.
The proviso—that particulars of any furniture must be included with the application, if requested by either party—is of little value in this context, since many landlords apply for a certificate of fair rent some time before they are ready to grant a tenancy—for example, before they carry out works of improvement or conversion. In such cases there is no tenant to be party to the application. The proposed amendment would, accordingly, be meaningless. I must, therefore, regretfully tell the hon. Gentleman that


the Government cannot accept the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Kaufman: I beg to move Amendment No. 50, in page 14, line 7, at end insert:
'(excluding any deterioration in that furniture due to fair wear and tear)'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Amendment No. 51.

Mr. Kaufman: Both Amendments correspond to amendments made in Committee and accepted by the Government.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 51, in page 14, line 14, leave out from the beginning to 'there' in line 15 and insert—
'(2) In subsection (3) of that section (factors to be disregarded)—

(a) in paragraph (b), after the word 'improvement' there shall be inserted the words (including any improvement to the furniture provided for use under the tenancy)';
(b) at the end'.—[Mr. Kaufman.]

Schedule 2

TENANCIES GRANTED BY RESIDENT LANDLORDS

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move Amendment No. 26, in page 15, line 34, leave out 'flats' and insert:
'self-contained flats or maisonettes capable of exclusive possession'.
The amendment relates to new Clause 5A, introduced into the Rent Act 1968 by Schedule 2 of the Bill. That is the clause which provides that there is to be no protected tenancy where a landlord's interest belongs to a resident landlord. However, there is an exception in that it shall not apply—that is, it shall be protected—if the building is
a purpose-built block of flats".
In Committee I endeavoured to refine that phrase because I was not certain what it meant. If it means something more than an originally purpose-built block of flats, I think that it needs some such refinement as the words in the amendment.
I am not sure whether "purpose-built" means houses which are converted into flats. There is some purpose-building about a conversion which produces

several dwellings or flats where there was only one house or dwelling before.
I have suggested in the amendment some words which I think define the position rather better. I suggest that instead of
a purpose-built block of flats",
we should describe it as
a purpose-built block of self-contained flats or maisonettes capable of exclusive possession".
If I understand the principle of new Clause 5A in the Rent Act, it is that the landlord, where there is another tenant in the same house and inconvenience can be caused by incompatibility between the tenant and the landlord, should have the right to evict the tenant without necessarily proving the legal ground for eviction, such as nuisance, which is difficult to prove. I suggest, therefore, that the landlord should have the right to choose his tenants in that way.
If there is a conversion where the new flats within the building are not completely self-contained—to put it another way, where they do not have their own front doors—the situation may arise in the same way in that there is that intimacy between the tenant and the landlord which should give the landlord the right to evict his tenant if there is incompatibility between them.
To some extent, this is a probing amendment. If I have got the right words I hope that the Government will accept them, because the schedule as it stands will cause some confusion to those who will have to apply it.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: I do not propose to detain the House for long, but I think that the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) is right in saying that the definition in the schedule is likely to cause confusion. If the amendment is accepted the confusion will become even worse confounded, but I wish to place on record that some of us feel some degree of concern about the definition of the resident landlord in Schedule 2.
I do not think that the amendment will improve matters—in fact it will make them worse—but there is in the Bill a provision that it will be necessary to inquire whether the premises were constructed in a particular way. Bearing in mind that a large part of the furnished


tenancies are in premises that were constructed some time in the nineteenth century and converted during the last 20 bears, a provision that requires us to inquire into the way in which the premises were constructed but to ignore the way in which they have been converted is disregarding reality.
I do not think that at half-past two in the morning before Parliament rises for the Summer Recess it is appropriate to suggest that the Bill should be amended. I am only too anxious to see the Bill become law, and I shall accept the provisions as they stand, but I hope that when we have the measure that has been suggested by the right hon. Member for Crosby—the corrigendum measure, as he called it—to correct any faults in the law relating to landlord and tenant we shall consider again the provision defining the resident landlord exemption.
I urge the Government to look with favour upon the test that would give exemption from the full protection of the Rent Acts to the landlord who has no more than two tenancies in his premises. Where a landlord is letting to more than two tenants, his tenants should have protection, whether or not the premises were designed as a purpose-built block of flats. This is a change which I hope we shall be able to achieve in later legislation.
I accept that because we are legislating in this way we must ensure that any landlord who lets on the basis proposed in the Bill in the period before the law is changed does not lose as a consequence of any change that we may make later. We should not at any future time change the situation at this stage, but I hope we shall have the opportunity to ensure that such faults as there may be in the Bill are corrected. I assure the Opposition that the faults are not of the kind that they have suggested, namely, that it goes too far and does too much harm. The fault is that the Bill has left too many loopholes, and I hope we shall ensure at some future time that these loopholes are plugged. I repeat my view that if landlords let in the period between this Bill coming into operation and any future legislation they should not be put at a disadvantage.
I hope that landlords will take that as an encouragement to use the exemption provided by the Bill to ensure that

more lettings are achieved in the interval before further legislation is passed. But it is wise to accept that there are still loopholes in the Bill and that we shall seek to correct them in the future.

The Solicitor-General: Perhaps at this late hour one must be thankful for small mercies. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann) for expressly disclaiming any intention that the Bill should be amended at this stage. As I understood him, he was rather suggesting that the test of whether flats are purpose-built was not the appropriate test. But certainly, I should have thought that, given that test, then by definition purpose-built flats are distinguished from converted flats and the test must be applied as at the time when they were originally erected. That is what is meant by saying that they are purpose-built.
The right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) will not have overlooked subsection (6), which states
For the purposes of this section a building is a purpose-built block of flats, if as constructed it contained, and it contains".
Therefore, the test begins when they were first constructed and is then continuous.
Perhaps it was the lateness of the hour affecting the normal clarity of the right hon. Gentleman or simply my capacity for understanding, but from that point on I was left still at a loss as to the purpose of the amendment.
The resident landlord exemption is intended to apply where the landlord occupies part of a building which is not purpose-built. As I understand it, the purpose of the amendment is that the exemption should still apply even where flats are purpose-built if they are not self-contained. What I was rather hoping to hear from the right hon. Gentleman were examples of the kind of situation that he has in mind. Presumably there are still tenement-type blocks of flats, built as flats, where they are not self-contained. But I did not follow why, in that situation, there should be a resident landlord exemption and what was the essential distinction between them and any other purpose-built blocks of flats.

Mr. Graham Page: Neither the hon. and learned Gentleman nor I need pursue this matter any further. He has answered


my question. I understand now what is meant by "purpose-built" and this settles the point I had in mind in these probing amendments.

The Solicitor-General: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I shall subside into silence.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Rossi: I beg to move Amendment No. 32, in page 15A, line 24, leave out '12' and insert '24'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Amendment No. 33, in page 15A, line 33, at end insert:
'and
(d) any period between the death of the landlord (whether before or after the commencement date) and the date upon which his estate becomes vested in his personal representative'.

Mr. Rossi: These amendments were raised in Committee. The Minister was kind enough to say that he would look at them again because they raised some legal difficulties and that he would consult the Law Society or some appropriate bodies to see whether the questions raised in Committee were valid.
The first amendment, in which we seek to substitute the figure 24 for the figure 12, relates to the period between the date of death and the time when the personal representatives of a resident landlord will have dealt with and administered the estate and are able to pass on the landlord's interest to someone else who may become a resident landlord. In other words, we are dealing quite literally with a moratorium period.
The figure "12" relates to 12 months, which is the normal executors' year. It is a matter of practice that many estates take more than 12 months to deal with adequately and properly. Therefore, in Committee it was suggested that a longer period might be more appropriate and would be fairer to personal representatives. It was that point which the Minister undertook to take up with professional bodies to see whether the moratorium should be extended.
Amendment No. 33 raises a more difficult legal situation. The assumption in the Bill appears to be that there is an automatic vesting in personal representatives of an estate of a person who dies. With intestacy there is the provision of

the Administration of Estates Act, where the vesting is in the probate judge. But where a will is left, some authorities assume that the will, because it automatically operates from the time of death vests the estate in the personal representatives. There is a line, however, which indicates that this is not the case. Problems could arise. The Scots have been wise, because they have a Succession Act which states that on the death of a person the estate vests automatically in the personal representatives. We have no such statutory provision under English law as regards wills. There is an area of doubt. It was to avoid any difficulty that Amendment No. 33 was posited, to ensure that no difficulty could arise because of legal uncertainty.

2.30 a.m.

The Solicitor-General: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) for putting the two points so succinctly. He was right in saying that an undertaking was given in Committee to have certain consultations as to the 12-months' period. It is important to get the balance right, if we can. We do not want a longer period than is necessary: only a reasonable time should be allowed during which a tenant does not know whether he is protected.
My hon. Friends have undertaken consultations with the Law Society and the Scottish Law Society. I am instructed that the consultations were informal but genuine and that neither learned body has expressed the view that one year is unduly short. In these circumstances, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that the period of one year should be retained.
The other matter relates to the very narrow point of the vesting of leaseholds in the case of a will. It is true that at one period there was a line of cases which suggested that a leasehold did not vest immediately on death, unlike other types of property. Those cases were all before the Law of Property Act 1925. The hon. Gentleman will recollect that Section 149(2) of the 1925 Act provides that leases can now take effect in possesssion without actual entry, and that was why previously it had been thought that they did not immediately vest on death, because the administrator was not deemed to be in possession as from the moment of death. In consequence of that, the


learned authors of Williams and Mortimer on Executors take the view that chattels real of a testator now vest immediately on his death; and the same principle would apply to the whole of his estate.
The perfectly genuine point which the hon. Gentleman raised is satisfactorily settled by the Law of Property Act, as I hope the hon. Gentleman will accept.

Mr. Rossi: I am grateful for the guidance which the Solicitor-General has given. In my recent experience a leaseholder under the Leasehold Reform Act fell into great difficulty because of advice received from learned counsel on the basis that a vesting did not take place in executors automatically on death. In Committee I recited the circumstances of that case. I shall not detain and bore the House by quoting the details, which are rather complicated. The circumstances were sufficiently unclear to deny a tenant inheritor a right of enfranchisement of the leasehold interest because there was not a succession in terms. It was because of that case which came to my attention that I felt it only right on this Bill to try to ensure that a similar situation did not arise.

The Solicitor-General: I cannot comment on the facts of that case, as I have not had an opportunity of studying them.
But it may be an additional assurance to the hon. Gentleman that in Biles v. Caeser the Master of the Rolls used these words when referring to a tenancy which was in question:
It has to be remembered that the title of the executor derives from the will and speaks from the will".
So the learned Master of the Rolls appeared to have no doubts on the subject.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Rossi: I beg to move Amendment No. 28, in page 15A, line 42, at end insert
or
(c) that interest is (or if it is held on trust for sale, the proceeds of its sale are) held on trust for beneficiaries any one of whom occupies as his residence a dwelling-house which forms part of the building referred to in paragraph (a) of that subsection".

Here again I am broaching a subject which we discussed in Committee. It relates to the situation of resident landlords who hold as trustees for sale for themselves and as beneficiaries at the same time. The situation could arise, possibly between married people—although we can deal with married people on the next amendment—where people buy a house in joint names. This is a frequent practice amongst professional people. Then, for some reason or other, one of the partnership disappears, and the question might arise whether or not the remaining trustee for sale and beneficiary is a resident landlord within the meaning of the Act.
We were nervous lest there might be an area of doubt here, and I am therefore moving the amendment so that the matter can be investigated by the Law Officers, and in the hope that an explanation can be given.

The Solicitor-General: The real point which the hon. Gentleman has raised is whether the situation which he has described is covered by the existing paragraph (b) of subsection (3). Paragraph (b) relates to a trust for sale
on trust for any person who occupies as his residence a dwelling-house which forms part of the building …".
The hon. Gentleman has in mind the situation where there is more than one beneficiary, one of whom occupies it. All I can usefully say is that it appears to us that that case is covered. The case of a number of beneficiaries one of whom occupies it is covered by the words
for any person who occupies".

Mr. Graham Page: I did not read it quite as my hon. Friend seems to have read his amendment, nor as the Solicitor-General did. In the new Section 5A(1)(b), on page 15 of the Bill, the necessity is that
the tenancy was granted by a person who … occupied as his residence …
If the property is held on trust for sale of a beneficiary, it will be the trustees who grant the tenancy, and the beneficiary is the occupier in residence in the building. I understood that to be the intention of my hon. Friend's amendment. In that case, the landlord will still have the benefit of an unprotected tenancy in the house, even though he


does not fit in exactly with the words in paragraph (b) that
the tenancy was granted by
him.

The Solicitor-General: I am sure that it is my fault, at this hour of the morning, but I fail to follow the right hon. Gentleman's argument. I should be happy to pursue it with him, but I doubt whether other hon. Members would be. Perhaps we can exchange correspondence.

Mr. Graham Page: It is an extremely simple point. I am sorry if I did not put it simply. In the new Section 5A(1)(b) the condition is that
the tenancy was granted by a person who … occupied as his residence …".
In the case of a trust for sale, where the beneficiary is allowed to occupy the premises which are on trust for sale, as is frequently the case when a widow takes under a will, the person who grants the tenancy will be the trustee. The person who occupies the house will be the widow in the example which I have given. It will, therefore, not be the same people as are required under paragraph (b) to be the same people.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Rossi: I beg to move Amendment No. 29, in page 15A, line 45, at end insert:
'(3A) During any period when—

(a) the interest of the landlord under the tenancy referred to in the subsection (1) above is held by a married person; and
(b) that married person or his spouse or both of them occupies as his or her residence a dwelling-house which forms part of the building referred to in paragraph (a) of that subsection,

the condition in paragraph (c) of that subsection shall be deemed to be fulfilled and accordingly no part of that period shall be disregarded by virtue of subsection (2) above'.
The intention here is that if the resident landlord goes away, leaving his or her spouse in occupation, the spouse may be deemed for these purposes to be the resident landlord, so that the position of the resident landlord as such vis-à-vis the tenant is preserved.

The Solicitor-General: The situation to which the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) refers is from time to time encountered in practice, and I think that

the answer is to be found in subsection (7) of the new Section 5A, the intention of the draftsman being to attract the case law relating to the statutory tenant of a dwelling house to this kind of situation where, for example, the tenant's wife remains in occupation.
But subsection (7) goes wider than that so that, in addition to this amendment's not being necessary since it is subsumed in subsection (7), the amendment might have the effect of casting doubt on the other situations caught by the subsection, since one might have to cover other circumstances—the owner who is absent owing to illness, and so on.

Mr. Rossi: I am grateful to the Solicitor-General for drawing our attention to subsection (7). The Under-Secretary took us round the houses with that in Committee. First, he told us that we have to go back to the 1968 Act to see what conditions are
by virtue of section 3(2) required to be fulfilled by a statutory tenant of a dwelling house
When we turned to that Act, we did not find anything there, so the hon. Gentleman referred us back to the 1920 Act, which is repealed. Then, having got a note from the Box, he said that we should look not at the 1920 Act but at Skinner v. Geary. We understood that Skinner v. Geary was the repository of all wisdom, although the hon. Gentleman had been telling us that we needed the Bill because one could not rely on court decisions such as Woodward v. Docherty and everything must be enshrined in statute.
Thus, we have subsection (7) relying on a decided case. We found ourselves a bit confused after that explanation in Committee, and we wonder now whether the Solicitor-General is satisfied that subsection (7)—after all the highways and byways ending in a decided case—does what he thinks it does and covers the situation which we want covered, whatever may have been the intention of the draftsman.

The Solicitor-General: Subsection (7) provides that
a person shall be treated as occupying a dwelling house as his residence … if … he fulfils the same conditions as … are required to be fulfilled by a statutory tenant of a dwelling house".


If one wishes to know what conditions are required to be fulfilled by a statutory tenant one looks at the whole of the case law and the various situations in which it has been held that a statutory tenant is in occupation of a dwelling-house. I was not a member of the Standing Committee, so I did not follow the course to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but that is the intention, and, in my view, the desired effect follows.

Amendment negatived.

Schedule 3

TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS

2.45 a.m.

Mr. Kaufman: I beg to move Amendment No. 42, in page 19, line 5, leave out 'contract' and insert 'tenancy'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With it we may also consider Government Amendments Nos. 43, 44 and 52.

Mr. Kaufman: In dealing with this last groups of amendments I feel it encumbent upon me, in view of the lacerating statements of the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi), to indulge in an apologia pro vita mea.
The hon. Member said in Committee that I went round the houses. I cannot think of a more sensible route to take on a Rent Bill. He also viciously accused me of receiving from the Box the information about Skinner v. Geary. I can assure him that Skinner v. Geary may have been a good case to cite but I found it myself and the Box did not intervene in any way. I was passed a book from the Box. I do not carry these books around with me. I found the case myself in a footnote and I should be given credit for that if for nothing else.
The first three of the amendments in the group bring the provisions of paragraph 1 of Schedule 3, governing existing furnished lettings by resident landlords in line with the provisions of Schedule 2—future lettings by resident landlords. It is necessary to provide separately for existing and future lettings by resident landlords as only existing furnished lettings will be exempt from full protection whereas both furnished and unfurnished new lettings by resident landlords

will be exempt from protection and subject to the rent tribunal. Amendment No. 52 is a Scottish version of Amendment No. 44.

Mr. Emery: Will you accept a manuscript amendment, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to delete a surplus "another" in Amendment No. 44?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have not had notice of this. Will the Minister comment on the proposal?

Mr. Kaufman: I have not received a note from the Box. I have received a nod and I accept the hon. Member's amendment. I share it with him as a happy conclusion to our working together on the Bill.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There is an even happier ending. This is a printing error and therefore no amendment is needed.

Mr. Emery: May I have from the Minister a definition of the "interest" in line 22 of Amendment No. 44?

Mr. Kaufman: The hon. Member has led me into one byway which I bitterly regret and I am not going to be led into any more.

Mr. Emery: As this interest is related to paragraph (c) and there are two references to paragraph (c) in the amendment, it is for the Minister to tell us what is the interest referred to in that paragraph.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 43, in page 19, line 6, after 'building' insert:
'and that building is not a purpose-built block of flats within the meaning of section 5A of the Rent Act 1968'.

No. 44, in page 19, line 7, leave out from 'lessor' to end of line 26 and insert:
'Within the meaning of the relevant Part of the Rent Act, under the furnished letting—

(i) belongs to a person who occupies as his residence another dwelling which also forms part of that building, or
(ii) is vested in trustees as such and is or, if it is held on trust for sale, the proceeds of its sale are held on trust for a person who occupies as his residence another dwelling which also forms part of that building, and

(d) apart from this paragraph the furnished letting would, on the commencement date, become a protected furnished tenancy,


the Rent Act shall apply, subject to sub-paragraph (2) below, as if the tenancy had been granted on the commencement date and as if the condition in paragraph (b) of section 5A(1) of the Rent Act 1968 were fulfilled in relation to the grant of the tenancy.
(2) In the application of the Rent Act 1968 to a tenancy by virtue of this paragraph—

(a) subsection (5) of section 5A shall be omitted; and
(b) in section 102A any reference to section 5A of that Act shall be construed as including a reference to this paragraph.

(3) In any case where paragraphs (a), (b) and (d) of sub-paragraph (1) above apply but on the commencement date the interest referred to in paragraph (c) of that sub-paragraph is vested—

(a) in the personal representatives of a deceased person acting in that capacity, or
(b) by virtue of section 9 of the Administration of Estates Act 1925, in the Probate Judge, within the meaning of that Act, or
(c) in trustees as such,

then, if the deceased immediately before his death or, as the case may be, the settlor immediately before the creation of the trust occupied as his residence another dwelling which also formed part of the building referred to in paragraph (b) of sub-paragraph (1) above, that sub-paragraph shall apply as if the condition in paragraph (c) thereof were fulfilled.
(4) In the application of subsection (2)(c) of section 5A of the Rent Act 1968 in a case falling within sub-paragraph (3) above, any period before the commencement date during which the interest of the landlord is vested as mentioned in that subsection shall be disregarded in calculating the period of 12 months specified therein.'.

No. 52, in page 19, line 26, at end insert:
'1 A.—(1) In any case where—

(a) before the commencement date a dwelling-house was subject to a tenancy which is a furnished letting; and
(b) the dwelling-house forms part only of a building and that building is not a purpose-built block of flats within the meaning of section 5A of the Act of 1971; and
(c) on that date the interest of the lessor, within the meaning of Part VII of that Act, under the furnished letting—

(i) belongs to a person who occupies as his residence another dwelling-house which also forms part of that building, or
(ii) is vested in trustees and is held on trust for a person who is entitled to the liferent or to the fee or a share of the fee of that interest and who occupies as his residence a dwelling-house which forms part of that building; and

(d) apart from this paragraph the furnished letting would, on the commencement date, become a protected furnished tenancy,

the Act of 1971 shall apply, subject to subparagraph (2) below, as if the tenancy had been

granted on the commencement date and as if the condition in paragraph (b) of section 5A(1) of that Act were fulfilled in relation to the grant of the tenancy.
(2) In the application of the Act of 1971 to a tenancy by virtue of this paragraph—

(a) subsection (6) of section 5A shall be omitted; and
(b) in section 119A any reference to section 5A shall be construed as including a reference to this paragraph.

(3) In any case where paragraphs (a), (b) and (d) of sub-paragraph (1) above apply but on the commencement date the interest of the lessor under the furnished letting is vested in the executor of a deceased person, then, if that deceased person immediately before his death occupied as his residence another dwelling-house which also formed part of the building referred to in paragraph (b) of sub-paragraph (1) above, that sub-paragraph shall apply as if the condition in paragraph (c) thereof were fulfilled.
(4) In the application of subsection (3)(c) of section 5A of the Act of 1971, in a case falling within sub-paragraph (3) above, any period before the commencement date during which the interest of the lessor is vested in the executor as mentioned in that subsection shall be disregarded in calculating the period of 12 months specified in that subsection.
(5) In this paragraph "the Act of 1971" means the Rent (Scotland) Act 1971'.

No. 40, in page 19A, line 32, at end insert:
3.—(1) The provisions of this paragraph shall have effect with respect to the period beginning on the commencement date and ending on the day appointed for the purposes of subsection (1) of section (Rent allowances) of this Act, and in the following provisions of this paragraph that period is referred to as "the interim period".
(2) During the interim period every allowance scheme (including an allowance scheme which is the model scheme, as defined in section 20(7) of the Housing Finance Act 1972) shall be deemed to be varied to such extent as is necessary to take account of the provisions of subsections (2) to (5) of section (Rent allowances) of this Act and of the repeals of provisions of Part II of that Act contained in Part I of Schedule 4 to this Act.
(3) No account shall be taken for the purpose of section 24 of the Housing Finance Act 1972 (publicity for schemes) of any deemed variation of a scheme which is effected by sub-paragraph (2) above.
(4) Where, during the interim period, an authority vary their allowance scheme to take account of the provisions of the subsections of the repeals referred to in subsection (2) above, the variation shall not take effect until the day appointed as mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) above.
(5) At any time within the interim period an authority may vary their allowance scheme,


with effect from the day appointed as mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) above, to take account of the modifications of Part II of the Housing Finance Act 1972 effected on and after that day by subsection (1) of section (Rent allowances) of, and Part II of Schedule 4 to, this Act.
(6) In this paragraph "allowance scheme" and "authority" have the same meanings as in Part II of the Housing Finance Act 1972.
4. Subsection (3) of section 20 of the Housing Finance Act 1972 (proposals for regulations varying Schedules 3 and 4 to that Act to be referred to the Advisory Committtee on Rent Rebates and Rent Allowances) shall not apply to regulations which are—

(a) made within the period of three months beginning on the commencement date; and
(b) expressed to be made for the purpose of making in either of those Schedules variations consequential upon provision made by virtue of paragraph (c) of section 25(3) of that Act (as set out in section (Rent allowances) (7) of this Act).'

No. 53, in page 19A, line 32, at end insert—
'5.—(1) The provisions of this paragraph shall have effect with respect to the period beginning on the commencement date and ending on the day appointed for the purposes of subsection (1) of section (Rent allowances in Scotland) of this Act, and in the following provisions of this paragraph that period is referred to as "the interim period".
(2) During the interim period every allowance scheme, (including an allowance scheme which is the model scheme as defined in section 17(5) of the Act of 1972) shall be

'1972 c. 46.
The Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1972.
In Schedule 3, in paragraph 15(1)(g)(ii) the words "125per cent. of".'


No.38, in page 20, column 3, leave out line 39 and insert—




'In section 23, in subsection (1) the words "or making orders under section 25(3A) of this Act".




In section 25, in subsection (1) the proviso, subsection (3A) and in subsection (4) the words "and orders".




Section 89'.


No.39, in page 20, line 40 (Schedule 4), at end add—


'1973 c. 6.
The Furnished Lettings (Rent Allowances) Act 1973.
In Schedule 1, paragraphs 17, 19 and 20'.

deemed to be varied to such extent as is necessary to take account of the provisions of subsections (2) to (4) of section (Rent allowances in Scotland) of this Act.

(3) No account shall be taken for the purposes of section 19(2) of the Act of 1972 (publicity for allowance schemes) of any deemed variation of a scheme which is effected by sub-paragraph (2) above.

(4) Where, during the interim period, an authority vary their allowance scheme to take account of the provisions of the subsections referred to in sub-paragraph (2) above, the variation shall not take effect until the day appointed as mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) above.

(5) At any time within the interim period an authority may vary, with effect from the day appointed as mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) above, their allowance scheme to take account of the modifications of section 16 of the Act of 1972 effected on and after that day by subsection (1) of section (Rent allowances in Scotland) of this Act.

(6) In this paragraph "the Act of 1972" means the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1972; and "allowance schemes" and "authority" have the same meanings as in Part II of the Act of 1972.'—[Mr. Kaufman.]

Schedule 4

ENACTMENTS REPEALED

Amendments made:

No. 37, in page 20, line 38, at end add—

'1972 c. 47.
The Housing Finance Act 1972.
In section 19, in subsections (4) and (6) the words "being a qualified person within the meaning of subsection (12) below", in subsection (8A) paragraph (b) and the word "and" immediately preceding it and subsections (12) to (14).




In section 23, in subsection (1) the words from "or to the descriptions" to the end of the subsection.




In section 24, in subsection (10) the words from "or to a person" to "would be a private tenant" and in subsection (11) the words from "or for a person" to "would be a private tenant of a dwelling".


'1973 c. 6.
The Furnished Lettings (Rent Allowances) Act 1973.
In Schedule 1, paragraphs 10 and 12.'—[Mr. Kaufman.]

Title

Amendment made: No. 41, in line 2, after '1971' insert—
'and the provisions of Part II of the Housing Finance Act 1972 and of the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1972 relating to rent allowances'.—[Mr. Kaufman.]

Motion made, and Question proposed. That the Bill be now read the Third time.

2.50 a.m.

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: It is a deplorable custom of the House, but a growing one, not to have a Third Reading debate on controversial Bills such as this. In recent years Parliament has been much weakened by hon. Members not exercising their rights, and this decay has gone much faster in the past few months.
The Bill might be called a charter for property-occupying democrats. I accept that once it was introduced it was necessary for it to be hastened through. However, I feel that it will leave behind real problems—more than it solves. I accept that it solves certain problems. It will be good for existing tenants, but not so good for the landlords, in some cases, or for people who hope to become tenants in the future. As it leaves the House it has the defect that was noted on Second Reading that it will tend to dry up rapidly the supply of accommodation.
I think that it was good to do away with the increasingly artificial distinction between furnished and unfurnished accommodation, but the effect of the Bill will be to reduce the total amount of extant housing available for rent. It will

reduce the level of occupancy of a large amount of extant property, and hence prolong the overcrowding of the rest.
There is nothing in the Bill that will add to the supply of new houses. It does nothing to increase the supply of new accommodation but it will serve to ossify the market.
Therefore, although the Bill should be passed, the House will have to attend to housing matters again urgently afterwards, because there is still so much to be done.
I shall now say something with which the Ministers perhaps will not agree, which is that they have more to learn about housing than they realise. They will learn it in the end, but I regret that it will only be at the public's expense.

2.52 a.m.

Mr. Arthur Latham: I want to express on behalf of my constituents their appreciation to the Government for this measure, and my appreciation to colleagues who served on the Committee, who endured a long and arduous session, particularly on one occasion. I sampled for only a brief time what they had to endure and had to leave the room. I am most grateful to them for their forbearance in seeing that the Bill reached the statute book.
I agree with the hon. Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) that the Bill will need improvement in the not-too-distant future, but rather than improving it from his point of view I believe that there are other difficulties about some of the exemptions which may


be a bit too broad and lead to possible abuses.
The bald fact is that about 250,000 furnished tenants in London will now, for the first time in years, be able to exercise their rights with regard to health inspectors and rent tribunals. Sadly, like many other hon. Members, I have often had to tell my constituents that it was inadvisable for them to exercise their other rights as furnished tenants, because the consequences might be that they would gain an immediate remedy to the problem but within about three months find themselves without a roof over their heads. The Bill removes that position for four-fifths of the furnished tenants in London. I am grateful on behalf of my constituents.

2.54 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: I cannot resist the temptation of the opportunity given by Third Reading to put on record again that the Bill will reduce the amount of property available for letting. To that extent it will increase stress in the areas that are already subject to stress. Therefore, the Bill will be of no real, lasting value to tenants.
Too many of our amendments for relieving that difficulty failed to find their way into the Bill. The Government introduced this difficult Bill at a very late stage in the Session, when there was not time to consider it fully, and endeavoured to excuse themselves for doing that by deciding even before the debates in Committee started that they would use the excuse of the Opposition's filibustering on the Bill. I hope that, looking at the amendments which have been achieved by the Opposition, the Government are a little ashamed of that party manoeuvre.
The Opposition, in serious, constructive debate, achieved a score of amendments; some have appeared today on the undertaking of the Government; others were made in Committee. The Government produced 30 amendments on Report. But it is not a good Bill, and its proceedings have not been rapid, because the Government started off by accusing the Opposition of not treating it properly. Nevertheless, we have made improvements to it, and I hope that to some extent it will be possible to administer it to the benefit of both landlord and tenant.

2.56 a.m.

Mr. Emery: I agree that the Bill will decrease the amount of property available for rent, whatever benefits it may, in certain circumstances, give to tenants in stress areas. The Government have forgotten that in other areas, particularly the South-West, the security now given to tenants will dry up the supply of rented property, where there is already a shortage.
I hoped to be on the Committee. I was put on it but discharged within the hour. But I have read its proceedings. The Government have not taken seriously the effect the Bill will have on certain country districts. I do not believe that they fully understand the situation.
I put a marker on the Bill. In areas like the South-West it will have an adverse effect, in that many people who want furnished accommodation to rent will not be able to get it. The Bill has a great deal about it that is ill-conceived and wrong. I am sorry to see much of it going on the statute book.

2.57 a.m.

Mr. Sainsbury: I agree with my right hon. and hon. Friends about the consequences of the Bill. The Minister has said that the biggest single cause of homelessness is insecurity of tenure in the furnished sector. This is readily identifiable as an incomplete analysis. The biggest single cause of homelessness is lack of accommodation.
I have been accused by the Minister on other occasions of making the same speech several times. Perhaps he makes that accusation because he does not relish hearing again the reminder of this point that my hon. Friends and I have repeated. The biggest single cause of homelessness, almost by definition must be lack of accommodation. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am grateful to Labour Members for their agreement, because their agreement shows that they recognise the foolishness of what the Bill achieves by still further reducing the availability of accommodation.
This is accommodation that meets a wide variety of needs. During our debates, hon. Members have mentioned the many categories of those who seek accommodation of the kind most affected by the Bill—professional people, young persons, single person households, people retiring away from where they have been


living, students, holiday makers, and so on. All these categories, about whom we should surely be concerned, are affected in various ways. The common factor of the ways in which the Bill affects them is the reduction in the amount of accommodation available, and that is the biggest single cause of homelessness.
The Minister has said that there is nothing in the Bill to compel people to stay in their present accommodation, and I agree with him to the extent that we are not requiring people not to move; but in so far as the Bill reduces the availability of the accommodation that people require, it will compel them to stay in their present accommodation, because they cannot move unless they can find alternative accommodation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) reminds me, not one new furnished dwelling house, the type of accommodation that meets the widest variety of needs—

Mr. Robin F. Cook: Will the hon. Member give me one instance from his own constituency or elsewhere during the past five years when a house has been purpose built and constructed for letting by a private landlord?

Mr. Sainsbury: I think that the hon. Member is suggesting that the Bill will not have the effect of driving the private landlord out of the market. I have numerous examples from my own constituency and there are others from elsewhere. I have here one letter—it is not well written for it is not from a very rich or privileged landlord—saying—
I would like to invite you with one such problem to inspect my basement flat that needs £3,500 to make it liveable for someone to live in it. Here were we with a statutory tenant bought with the sale of the house. Her rent for 10 years was old money £1 10s. a week including the rates.
So the letter goes on. That is a clear example of the sort of problem that we are up against.
I have a list of the sort of people who advertised in one newspaper on one day seeking the sort of accommodation the supply of which will be adversely affected by the Bill:
Lecturer and wife (no children) urgently require"—

furnished accommodation.
Married lecturer, no children, requires small furnished flat …
Young married professional couple seek self-contained … furnished flat …
Furnished flat required for journalist ….
Perhaps that will strike a chord on the Government Front Bench.
Two final year student nurses require furnished fiat.
Five professional people require 3–4-bedroomed house …
Two young ladies require 2-bedroomed furnished flat.
I am delighted that they require a two-bedroomed flat.
Lady teacher … seeks shared accommodation ….
Accommodation for three lady teachers …
Single lady urgently requires flat …".
One could go on. A large variety of people require the range of furnished accommodation the supply of which will be affected by the provisions of the Bill.

Mr. Michael English: I have been fascinated to listen to the hon. Member and the three preceding speakers. I think that Members on the Conservative side of the House are so used to being either in government or in opposition—[Interruption.] That is the whole point. They have not quite understood this Parliament. I have been listening with fascination to the discussion. According to the last four speakers, the Bill is wholly evil. Can the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) tell me why Members on his side are allowing it to pass?

Mr. Sainsbury: I must confess that my limited experience of the House is that I have been either on the Government side or on the Opposition side.

Mr. English: Not in this Parliament.

Mr. Sainsbury: I should be enlightened if the hon. Member could tell me where else I could find myself than on one or other of those two sets of benches. If one is privileged to be here, one happens to be either in government or in opposition.

Mr. English: Not in this Parliament.

Mr. Sainsbury: In this Parliament, perhaps, we are reminded that we are all minorities. If, indeed, we are all minorities, surely it is all the more


important that we do not, for doctrinaire or dogmatic reasons, introduce measures that will adversely affect a large number of people, and many of those who will be most adversely affected are the people in the community who are perhaps more in need of help than many others.
Everything that we have heard in the fairly lengthy discussions both upstairs in Committee and here in the House tends to reinforce my opinion that the Bill will have entirely undesirable effects. The most charitable view I can take of the Government's position is that they have not appreciated the consequences of their own legislation.
I should like to place on record my opinion that the Bill will result in accommodation that might otherwise be available for letting not being so available—in some cases being kept empty—and those who seek that accommodation becoming homeless in some cases because the accommodation is not available and in other cases being unable to move to the accommodation they want, where they want it, because there is nothing to meet their needs.
I hope that there will be an early opportunity not only to put into good, simple order the complicated provisions of this rushed legislation but to correct some of the damage that it will do to the supply of accommodation, particularly furnished accommodation.

3.9 a.m.

Mr. Rees-Davies: I want to be brief because we have already spoken at very great length—certainly I have done so—on the Bill. I believe that it provides a charter for the furnished tenant. I believe that it will do some good in the stress areas that one or two hon. Gentlemen on the Government side, and one or two on this side of the House also, have to look after.
In some of the constituencies it will deal with the case of the furnished tenant who, rightly, regards his tenancy as his home. Where it is his home he is entitled to some security of tenure. It is in those circumstances that the Government have a valid point. That does not answer the real case. The true case is that the Bill goes much wider than was necessary to achieve its purpose. It

takes in an enormous area which the Government did not need to grab and control. In that respect it will do a great deal of harm and damage and it will be a charter not only for the furnished tenant but for homelessness.
It will not only dry up other accommodation; it will mean that we will have to introduce amending legislation in a short space of time to cure the evil effects that the Bill will create. As a lawyer, I do not believe that this is the way to conduct our legislation. I do not believe that the Government could not have introduced the Bill somewhat earlier.
As usual, the Liberal Party has gone home. There is not one member of that party with us, not even that darling Cinderella, the Liberal Member for Bodmin (Mr. Tyler), who went home at midnight on the first night that we discussed the matter in Committee. The sole representative of the Liberal Party has gone home tonight. This is typical of the lack of interest which they show in a measure of this kind.
It is sad that we should have to debate an important measure—I say this in a non-party sense, because I would have said the same if my party had done it in Government—in a way which compels us, and I think that is the right word, to assist the Government to get this measure. Once the Conservative Party decided not to vote against Second Reading those of us who found it difficult to support the Bill felt it our duty, as loyal members of the party, to give careful consideration throughout a great many hours in Committee, to the details of the Bill. Certainly no one can charge my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi), who led us brilliantly in Committee for many long hours, with filibustering or saying a single word which was not uttered in an attempt to improve the measure.
No one has said it in my instance and they could not. I am not so long-winded and I did not want to be unduly long when dealing with the many amendments which we moved to try to improve the Bill. In so doing I believe that we have been able to improve it. There is no doubt about that. At the same time, we have not had a fair deal. It is not fair to ask the House


of Commons to deal with a measure which came suddenly out of the Lords, went into Committee on a Tuesday and, then, on Thursday of the same week had a Committee sitting from 10.30 am until 1 o'clock the next afternoon. It is not fair upon the officials who have to guide and advise the Ministers. These officials are able men and women, who have to try to provide the answers.
I noted time and again that the Minister had to rely upon virtually reading from briefs given to him with great speed and efficiency by his officials. I do not criticise him for that. I saw that he was almost out on his feet. Any human being working for that number of hours does not do himself much good. I have a lot of stamina, as I am sure has the Minister, but I am sure that no Minister would have been at his best after all those hours and without support from his own side, because his colleagues were gagged and not allowed to say a word.
I do not regard that as democracy. It is a bad example in itself—and is certainly a bad example in terms of the way to deal with legislation. I do not think we will be proud of this Measure. We know that it will need to be amended by whichever Government have to deal with it, whether Labour or Conservative. The Bill has almost every bad feature one can name.
Let me name one or two. First, I do not believe in legislation governed by reference. It is too difficult for people to understand. It is wrong to govern by legislation which refers back to a 1968 Act—

Mr. Graham Page: And to 1920.

Mr. Rees-Davies: Yes, as far back as 1920. Now we find ourselves discussing the Bill at 3 o'clock in the morning. This debate will go on record and I shall make it my business to draw it to the notice of the nation. It is intolerable that we should be asked to stay up for 28 hours of debate to try to enable the measure to reach the statute book.
I do not believe that government by reference to earlier Acts is right. We should make legislation in rent matters legislation which people can understand. It is unfair to landlord and tenant that the Government have now got to put out an explanatory memorandum to try to

explain the purposes of the legislation. This is not the way to introduce important legislation which tenants and landlords must try to understand.
It is no good saying that the Government will get the case across in the month of August. Everybody is away then, and nobody will question it. It will be almost impossible for this to be appreciated, because we have strikes in this House. We are not able to see a copy of a Bill which is readable. Even then people will not be able to understand it, because it refers to the recent Act of 1968. Unless one has a copy of the Act and the capacity of being an excellent lawyer, one cannot possibly understand it. The whole thing is a deplorable mess.

Mr. George Cunningham: Not unusual!

Mr. Rees-Davies: It is unusual and it is not something to which the House of Commons should lend its name. It is a form of misconduct of democracy, and when we think today that we are trying to uphold democracy, trying to introduce measures which we believe are in accordance with sound principle, this is a negation of the principles for which this House of Commons stands. I have said much the same against my own party at times, and anyone who knows me will know that. I do not think that this is right.
This measure went upstairs into Committee and had this bulldozing operation. If we had spent last week sitting right through the night, which we could have done—we have the stamina—my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page), my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) and others would have been prepared to go through another whole night if necessary. But that would have achieved nothing. All that would have happened is that the Government would have said that we were filibustering the Bill. It would not have been true. Because of its many failings, we could debate this measure for a great number of hours. My right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby, who has enormous experience of these matters, reckoned that in ordinary debate this Bill was good for at least 20 to 25 sittings. In the ordinary way, we would have had four sittings a week. The Bill would have taken five to six weeks in Standing Committee.
At the end of that time, we would have produced a measure which this House, whether or not we philosophically disagreed with it, would have regarded as a sound measure to go on the statute book. But in the way in which it went, this is not a measure which is satisfactory.
I give two examples. First, it is intolerable that the Bill should go back to another place tomorrow in the form in which it is. Baroness Young, in another place, secured a situation for students. Government supporters may not agree with it, and they did not. The other place was concerned to ensure that the student situation should be clarified. It was concerned to ensure that by October the students would be able to have accommodation. It was very concerned to ensure that the institutions and the landladies with the digs would be available to provide it. It passed some amendments. They were bulldozed upstairs. It is true that in response to a speech of mine the Minister indicated an intention to introduce a form of registration. I am sure that he had thought of it beforehand himself. He said that the Government believed that there should be a form of registration for student accommodation. But what is the situation? There will be no production of this registration until, probably, November, December or January.
Why is it that the Government want to bulldoze through this measure? The one reason is that they want to introduce retrospective legislation. They want to do something which is very naughty. They know that it is naughty. How would anyone like to find himself in a situation where he had entered into a viable contract with someone to let him accommodation for six months, only to find that the Labour Government had suddenly introduced legislation which had been rushed through in a matter of weeks and which trapped the person concerned so that he found himelf subject to an Act which he never thought for a moment would affect him?
There are a large number of landlords, I am sure, who will want to go on letting accommodation professionally to tenants. It may be that many more will withdraw accommodation from the market. It was wholly unfair to force though this measure at short notice, so that landlords who happen to have furnished accommodation

at the moment, the tenancies of which are running out in September and October, find themselves, against their will, in a situation in which their tenants are able to remain in control. This may mean that their whole lives and livelihoods are affected.
For example, somebody who let a furnished tenancy for six months from May to October will now find himself in a position in which the tenant can remain, yet he had no forewarning that he would be faced with that situation. He may have made arrangements for his daughter, who is getting married next year to have that accommodation. I agree that he is not an owner-occupier. He is what is regarded by hon. Gentlemen opposite as something quite wrong—an absentee landlord. But every landlord is an absentee. There is no such category as a landlord who lives on the premises. If a man lives in the premises he is an owner-occupier. Such people will now be trapped against their will. They will be unable to get back their properties which they may have purchased for good reason knowing that they would be able to use them for members of their households.
The Bill is a disgrace to our nation. It is absolutely scandalous. It is wrong and contrary to democracy to bring to this House a measure and to bulldoze it through because we on this side of the House believe that we should assist hon. Gentlemen opposite by relieving stress areas. I recognise that they have a good argument regarding the stress areas.
I understand the views of the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Freeson)—to refer to him in another light—and the problems that he has in his constituency. I understand the problems of Paddington and North Kensington. I have spent my working life with a knowledge of the law of landlord and tenant. That is why I served on the Committee on the Bill. However, it is not right that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite should have used or misused the House of Commons in the way that they have.
I shall continue to attack the Labour Party throughout the country in the months ahead on a very simple principle—that whilst it is proper to introduce a measure to control furnished tenancies because it is thought to be right, it is not right to do it behind the backs of


landlords and to giggle about it, as many hon. Gentlemen have, as if it is funny to put them into a position which means that in the end they cannot get out of the obligations into which they have entered.
That is why I feel strongly about the Bill. That is why I would have voted against it. I am prepared to go on the record as saying that I would have done so, but not because I am against doing something for people in the twilight areas. I would never do that. Indeed, I was one of the famous Margate mutineers who, with Dame Irene Ward, when she was a Member of this House, took 40 Tory Members into the Lobby against Henry Brooke's Act. Let that not be forgotten. I did not believe in the decontrol that the then Tory Government were introducing—I do not believe that we cannot apply control—but I profoundly believe that professional people are entitled to accommodation.
I think that it is right that young men and women should be given the opportunity of obtaining homes. I am prepared to accept controls where they are necessary. However, I am not prepared to support the way that this measure has been introduced. I think that it is wrong. I do not think that it is in accordance with the principles of this House. That is why I am sorry the Government have handled the Bill in the way they have.

3.30 a.m.

Mr. Robin F. Cook: I wish to speak only briefly. I am urged to do so because there have been references to what happened in Committee upstairs, and it is appropriate for someone who was on that Committee to say something about it.
I had to exercise a policy of restraint in what I said in Committee, because if my colleagues and I had not done so we should not have had the Bill before us at this stage or in this Session of Parliament and we should have lost the measure. It is unfair for the Opposition to claim total credit for having probed, tested and improved the Bill, when they know that because of the amount of time that they took to do that they denied Government back benchers the opportunity to probe, test and improve the Bill.
It is also unfair for the Opposition to blame the Government side for having

kept the Committee sitting for 27 hours, because there can be no doubt that four or five Opposition Members contributed 21 hours of debate. The hon. and learned Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies) may think that he is not given to being long-winded, but I recall about four occasions on which he spoke for more than half an hour on a few different points.
I am sorry that the Bill was introduced so late in the present stage of Parliament. I should have liked to see it brought in earlier, but it is preposterous to suggest that such a modest measure as this ought to be in Committee for five or six weeks—longer than it takes to get the Finance Bill through its Committee stage.
There is another thing that undermines the whole case now being made by the Opposition, and that is that so many of the speeches in Committee revolved round one argument that was put to us again and again and added to with a few rhetorical flourishes and hard cases in the different constituencies. The argument was that the Bill would dry up the supply of furnished rented accommodation.

Mr. Sainsbury: Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that there were many occasions in Committee when it became apparent that there were points of law that needed clarification, there were references back that were not clear and there were general drafting difficulties—not errors—that needed to be cleared up? I think the hon. Gentleman will recognise, if he looks at the fairly thick wad of paper on which the Committee proceedings are recorded, that there were many occasions on which these matters were rightly dealt with.

Mr. Cook: My hon. Friends will be able to measure the length of some of the speeches of the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) by extrapolating the length of interventions in the speeches of other Members.
Nobody takes objection to reasonable Committee points about drafting or legal issues, but repeatedly we saw such points used as a peg on which to hang what were essentially Second Reading speeches.
A myth is growing up that there is a vast increase in the supply of furnished


rented accommodation. It is a myth because, if I may pose a rhetorical question, where is the increased supply coming from? Is it coming from the owner-occupied sector? Do we see owner-occupied houses being turned over to private lettings? The answer is "No". Do we see it coming from new constructions? Do we see any houses being purpose-built for private letting? The answer again is "No".
The only reason for an increase in private furnished lettings in recent years is that there has been a flight from unfurnished private lettings to evade the provisions of security created in the 1965 Act and consolidated in the 1968 Act. I made the point on Second Reading, and I am sorry that it was not grasped then by the Opposition. There is no net increase in the privately rented sector. All that we see within that sector is a transference of unfurnished to furnished in order to evade the provisions for security that were put into the 1968 Act. All that we are seeking to do in the Bill is to restore those provisions for security. The privately rented sector has been in decline for some time—going well back to the First World War, and for very valid reasons.
I have two comments to make to the Opposition. First, if it is true that it is the Bill which will dry up the supply, why do so many of us see in our constituences private furnished dwellings being emptied of their tenants and put on the market for sale? Why has this been going on for months? If one goes back to the 1957 Act, which abolished security for many properties, one finds that that was followed by a very sharp reduction in the amount of property for privately rented accommodation.
Finally, there is another myth being created by the Opposition. It is that we have, through the Bill, sought to freeze all tenants in a position of permanent security in all privately furnished dwellings. Of course that is not so. The Bill will still provide for the landlord who has a reason to evict his tenant the opportunity to do so. If the tenant is abusing the property, for instance, the landlord will still be able to get an eviction. What the Bill does is to prohibit the landlord from evicting the tenant on a whim, or because he thinks that he will be able

to obtain a tenant who will pay a higher rent, or if the tenant merely exercises his right to go to the rent tribunal—which evictions are sadly and regularly the case.
The Bill will also prevent the case of the landlord who is liable to evict couples without children who reply to an advertisement for couples without children, and who have been unable to find a house and have brought with them children in the fullness of time.
It is a matter of regret that it has taken quite so long and so many hours of debate in order to get this point across.

3.37 a.m.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: Out of concern for my colleagues, but not out of any lack of stamina, I should like to make only a few comments.
This Bill is the most important measure of social justice which this Parliament has introduced. It is infinitely important to the limited number of people affected by it. The criticisms of the Bill from the Opposition are criticisms which I believe are not genuinely sustained. They are criticisms based on points of detail and legalistic points which are not genuine. There are defects in the Bill, and it still contains loopholes. But this measure should have been introduced by the previous Labour Government. I very much regret that it was not, but I am delighted that it has been introduced by the present Government.

3.38 a.m.

Mrs. Thatcher: The hour is late, so I shall be brief.
The Bill came before the House for its Second Reading only three weeks and one day ago. It was a rushed Bill and now bears all the hallmarks of a rushed measure. It would have been far better if my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) and the Opposition team had had much more time properly to scrutinise the Bill. We should then not have needed now to be talking, on both sides of the House, of producing amendments to the Bill in the next Session. Both sides of the House and the Minister have already made such references.
I reject the assertion of the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann) that the points that we have made are legalistic. They are not. They frequently come from human cases


where the landlord has a right to regain possession of his property in certain circumstances. They are circumstances in which, if they occur, Labour hon. Members and Ministers would wish to regain possession of their property and attempt to do so. These are human points and human cases. Tomorrow there will be the general batch of letters raising a lot more cases and suggesting many more amendments. The difference between us is that hon. Members opposite do not recognise that a landlord has equity and the right to a reasonable solution to his problems. If they did recognise that, they would acknowledge the need for amendments of the type we tabled.
Again on the question of the effect on the suply of accommodation there is a fundamental difference between the two sides. The Government side believe that all the needs of the rented sector should be met by the public sector only. We reject that contention. We believe that there is a place in our society for the good private landlord and, further, that those who seek accommodaton would benefit from the provision which the private landlord could and would make if he had the incentive.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) will remember that on Second Reading I gave details of the case of a constituent of mine who had converted his home to a number of flats and in the end had to sell the property because the rent he was allowed to charge was not sufficient to service the loan. That was the case of someone who would have provided accommodation if he could have obtained a reasonable return and possession.
I am tempted to continue but will not do so. I have made our position clear. We hope in due course to pass the requisite amendments ourselves.

3.42 a.m.

Mr. Freeson: Tory Members contend that the need for rented accommodation can be met by the private landlord. They had 16 years out of the last 23 years in government. In that time there was a steady decrease in the provision of private rented accommodation, mostly under their Government. Nothing that was done throughout most of those years was able to increase the provision along the lines they say is possible.
The contention of the Tories is nonsense. Any expert in housing knows this and can prove it, and knows that there has been a steady and continuing decline for generations. There is no indication of any change in that situation. All we have had is a series of rhetorical speeches from the Tories over many years which have produced no results.
We inherited the most disastrous situation in the provision of rented accommodation that any Government have inherited for generations. It was the inheritance we got from the Tory Government, who produced the worst slump in house-building the country had seen in 40 years. We have been in office for five and a half months. We inherited a programme of 60,000 to 70,000 starts in the rented sector. I am prepared to bet that by the end of this year we will nearly double that figure. The private sector has been slumping under every Government, and under the Tories most of all.
The Tories have made noises tonight about not wishing to oppose the Bill. I can only say that we welcomed the sea change that occurred after the marathon Standing Committee sitting which lasted about 28 hours. The stories we heard from Tory Members tonight about what they did in the initial stages in Standing Committee were humbug. Up until the marathon, most of what went on in Committee was filibuster.

Mr. Graham Page: How can the Minister justify that?

Mr. Freeson: Do I have the floor, Mr. Deputy Speaker?

Mr. Graham Page: It is absolutely unjustifiable.

Mr. Freeson: It is interesting to see how sensitive hon. Members opposite are.

Mr. Graham Page: Of course. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that we did not filibuster. Did the Chairman of the Committee ever call us to order?

Mr. Freeson: It is all right for hon. Members opposite to hand it out, but they do not like receiving it. We have had more humbug from the hon. and learned Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies) tonight than we had in the whole of the Committee proceedings.

Mr. Rees-Davies: Mr. Rees-Davies rose—

Mr. Freeson: I have sat through a series of speeches tonight during the Report stage and Third Reading—

Mr. Graham Page: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the Minister to refer to the Members of the Opposition as having filibustered in Committee when not once did the Chairman ever accuse us of filibustering or call us to order for tedious repetition or anything of the sort?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): That is hardly a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Freeson: I have made my point. I do not intend to repeat it.

Mr. Graham Page: Absolutely disgraceful!

Mr. Freeson: I am glad to see that the consciences of hon. Members opposite are pricked a little by my remarks.
I now turn to the last point that I wish to make on this Bill.

Mr. Graham Page: Thank goodness.

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: The Minister is not improving the Bill.

Mr. Graham Page: Nor is he improving himself.

Mr. Freeson: I think we are getting a lot of silly, rude, arrogant interruptions.

Mr. Rees-Davies: The Minister is so damned arrogant.

Mr. Freeson: It is interesting to see the reactions of hon. Members opposite. We have had none of this come-back until now. Now we are giving what we have been receiving.
I wish to make one last point about this Bill, and it covers two aspects. One is that there is no evidence whatsoever that this kind of legislation has any effect on the rate of loss of rented accommodation from the housing market. There has been no experience to indicate this in the past. All the assertions to the contrary do not prove the point. The history of housing loss in the rented field supports the opposite view—not the view that has been expressed by hon. Members opposite.
This leads me to my last point. We have been waiting for a long time to give

justice to the furnished tenants. We are proud to have taken the opportunity to introduce this Bill and to have seen it through the Committee and other stages. It will be welcome. It is an act of social justice for which hundreds of thousands of families have been waiting for far too long.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

PARLIAMENTARY EXPENSES

3.47 a.m.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Edward Short): I beg to move,
That, in the opinion of this House, it is expedient that further provision with respect to allowances, facilities and other payments for Members of this House should be made as follows:—

(1) the rate of the allowance which under the Resolution of this House of 20th December 1971 is now payable to certain Members of this House as a supplementary London allowance should be increased, in respect of periods after 1st August 1974, to £228 a year;
(2) the limit of £750 on the allowance which, under the Resolution of 20th December 1971, is now payable in respect of additional expenses necessarily incurred by certain Members of this House staying overnight away from their only or main residences for the purposes of performing their parliamentary duties should be replaced by a limit of—

(a) £950 for the period of twelve months from 1st April 1974 to 31st March 1975, and
(b) £1,050 for any subsequent period of twelve months beginning on 1st April;

(3) the limit of £1,000 on the allowance which, in accordance with the Resolution of 20th December 1971, is now payable to Members of this House in respect of expenses incurred for their parliamentary duties on secretarial assistance should be replaced by a limit of—

(a) £1,500 for the period of twelve months from 1st April 1974 to 31st March 1975 and;
(b) £1,750 for any subsequent period of twelve months beginning on 1st April;

(4) the expenses in respect of which, in accordance with the Resolution of 20th December 1971, the allowance mentioned in paragraph (3) of this Resolution is payable to any Member of this House within that limit should (for any such period as is mentioned in that paragraph) include—

(a) general office expenses, and
(b) within a maximum of £465 for the first period of twelve months mentioned in


that paragraph, and of £550 for any later period of twelve months, the expenses of employing a research assistant on work undertaken in the proper performance of the Member's parliamentary duties;

(5) the limit on the allowances which, under the Resolutions of 3rd November 1970 and 20th December 1971 are now payable to Members of this House for travel by road on certain journeys should, for journeys commenced after 1st August 1974, be replaced by a limit in respect of the use of a car of 7·7 pence a mile;
(6) provision should be made for any Member of this House who is a Member for a constituency—

(a) falling wholly or partly within Greater London; and
(b) not being a constituency mentioned in the Schedule to the Resolution of 20th December 1971, as amended by the Resolution of this House of 13th March 1974,

to receive the allowance mentioned in paragraph (1) of this Resolution in place of any allowance of the kind mentioned in paragraph (2), if he so chooses.
My business will be non-controversial. This motion gives effect to the announcement which I made in the House on Monday on Members' allowances.

Question put and agreed to.

REDUNDANCY PAYMENTS

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. John Fraser): I beg to move,
That the Calculation of Redundancy Payments Order 1974, a draft of which was laid before this House on 24th July, be approved.
I will move this motion as briefly as I can. The purpose of the order is to double the amount of weekly pay which qualifies for redundancy payments. It involves increasing the limit of pay from £40 a week to £80 a week. This follows naturally the increase in average earnings since the Redundancy Payments Act was passed in 1965. It is a sensible and proper measure to bring the rate of redundancy payment up to date.

3.50 a.m.

Mr. David Madel: First, may we know whether employers will have to pay an increased contribution to the fund? The fund has had a rather erratic history since 1969. At one stage it was £17 million in the red, then it moved into the black by £7 million, and then it went back into the

red. These fluctuations appear to be entirely dependent on the rate of unemployment in the country, and, in view of the hints which have been dropped by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the matter, there is anxiety in industry as to how the fund will develop in the next few months.
Second, may we know what the relationship is with the Social Security Act 1973 and the different contributions which will be paid from April 1975?
Finally, what consultations did the Government have with industry before bringing in this order?

3.51 a.m.

Mr. Graham Page: When answering those questions, perhaps the Minister will acknowledge that the Statutory Instruments Committee found a flaw in the first edition of the order. I commend the Department for correcting that flaw and producing a new instrument. I intervene only to point out that the Statutory Instruments Committee does at least some good at times.

3.52 a.m.

Mr. John Fraser: May I have the leave of the House to speak again?
We were grateful to the Statutory Instruments Committee for drawing our attention to a defect in the first instrument which was laid. We were sincerely grateful also for the understanding and co-operation of the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) in helping us to get a further statutory instrument approved by his Committee at very short notice. It was an excellent example of co-operation between a Department and that Committee, to the benefit of the good working of the Department and of the House. I am sincerely grateful for the assistance which we had.
I come now to the questions raised by the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Madel). First, consultation. There has been no consultation about the making of this order. I say that with no suggestion of arrogance, and I shall explain why we proceeded in that way. The purpose of the order is to bring up to date the amount of earnings which would qualify for determination of redundancy payments. Earnings have roughly doubled since 1965, and we thought it proper, and not before time, that we


should double the range of earnings which could qualify.
The second reason why there was no consultation is that this is a sensitive matter We were anxious to introduce the order as soon as we could. We did not want to have long-drawn-out consultations which might have meant that men were made redundant before the order came into effect because an employer wanted to pay out less redundancy pay than would otherwise apply.
Next, the question of employers' contributions. At present the fund is in surplus to the extent of about £18·5 million. There will be some extra expense on employers and on the fund where someone is made redundant and his earnings are between £40 and £80 a week. We believe that the fund is able to afford that. We believe that it is right and just to do it for people on fairly high earnings, skilled workers, perhaps, whose employment is important for the country's future.
The present contribution is 6·3p per week for men and 2·9p per week for women. It was the proposal of the last Government, I think, that the basis of contribution for redundancy payments should in any event be changed when the national insurance contribution went on to a sliding scale. We have adopted the same scale as was proposed by our predecessors, namely, a contribution by employers of 0·2 per cent. of earnings for which national insurance contribution would be made. That comes into effect in April 1975. I understand that the range of contribution is likely to be between at the lower limit 8p per week and at the higher limit 69p per week. To give one example, for a man earning £50 a week the employer's contribution will be 10p per week on the sliding scale as against an existing contribution of 6·3p, although at the lower end of the scale the employer will pay slightly less and at the higher end slightly more. The burden on employers will be negligible and should not impose any undue burden.

Resolved,
That the Calculations of Redundancy Payments Order 1974, a draft of which was laid before this House on 24th July, be approved.

INSURANCE COMPANIES BILL [Lords]

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. OSCAR MURTION in the Chair]

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

PERSONS PERMITTED TO CARRY ON INSURANCE BUSINESS

3.56 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Law Officers Department (Mr. Arthur Davidson): I beg to move in page 2, line 24, leave out paragraph (e) and insert—
'(e) a trade union or employers' association (within the meaning of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974) where the insurance business carried on by the union or association is limited to the provision for its members of provident benefits or strike benefits.'

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With it we may also consider the two other Government amendments.

Mr. Davidson: The reasons for the amendments are the same in each case. The Bill is a consolidation measure and the amendments are non-controversial. They are all technical and they are all consequential upon the repeal of the Industrial Relations Act and upon the provisions of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Bill, which the House discussed at some length earlier today.

Amendment agreed to.

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Mr. David Waddington: It is important that I should say something not because we have any intention of voting against the clause but because we want to congratulate the hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. Davidson) on his new appointment. It is certainly a great pleasure for me because, like me, he represents a North-West constituency, and he is a fellow lawyer. I certainly hope that he will have a very distinguished and brief tenure of office.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 3 to 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 12

INSURANCE COMPANIES TO WHICH PART II APPLIES

Amendment made: In page 9, line 4, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
'(3) Where a trade union or an employers' association carries on insurance business, this Part of this Act does not apply to it as an insurance company if the insurance business is limited to the provisions for its members of provident benefits or strike benefits.
In this subsection "trade union" and "employers' association" have the same meanings respectively as they have in the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974'.—[Mr. Arthur Davidson.]

Clause 12, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 13 to 90 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule I agreed to.

Schedule 2

REPEALS

Amendment made: In page 69, leave out lines 42 to 45.—[Mr. Arthur Davidson.]

Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported, with amendments.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to, with amendments.

COMPTROLLER AND AUDITOR GENERAL (SALARY)

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

4.2 a.m.

The Minister of State, Civil Service Department (Mr. Robert Sheldon): I beg to move,
That the rate of the salary which may be granted to the Comptroller and Auditor General under section 1 of the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act 1957 be increased—

(a) for periods before 1st June 1974 from £16,000 to £16,350 per annum;
(b) for the period of June 1974 from £16,350 to £16,412·64 per annum;
(c) for the period of July 1974 from £16,412·64 to £16,454·40 per annum; and
(d) for later periods from £16,454·40 to £16,475·28 per annum.


and the date from which, under subsection (3) of that section, the person now holding that office is entitled to a salary at the said increased rates be 1st January 1974.
With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I suggest that for the convenience of the House we debate at the same time the motion relating to the Parliamentary Commissioner:
That the yearly rate of the salary payable to the Parliamentary Commissioner under section 2 of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 be increased—

(a) for periods before 1st June 1974 from £16,000 to £16,350;
(b) for the period of June 1974 from £16,350 to £16,412·64;
(c) for the period of July 1974 from £16,412·64 to £16,454·40; and
(d) for later periods from £16,454·40 to £16,475·28,

and the date from which this Resolution is to take effect be 1st January 1974.
The motions just seek to ensure that both the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Parliamentary Commissioner remain at the same level of pay as a Permanent Secretary. The motions bring these two salaries into line.

4.3 a.m.

Mr. Bob Cryer: The salaries with which the motions deal appear grotesque to the average worker in this country, where average earnings are of the order of £40 a week. If we are to set an example, I believe that one area where a sacrifice can be made is in the so-called top salaries.
When the ordinary person sees us approving such a salary, even though the increases are not enormous in relation to the salary, he looks askance at that level of income. People are led to believe that there is a section of the community that is very well off and a vast proportion of the community that is not so well off and, therefore, has to organise and battle to secure a modest increase in income. On such occasions when salaries of this level are being bandied about, one should protest and say that one example to the rest of the nation would be by salaries of this range being kept at least to their existing level, if not curtailed. Only in this way can we persuade the rest of the nation that there is a genuine attempt to redistribute wealth.
I believe that the Government are making, a genuine effort to redistribute


wealth, and I hope that they will continue on that path for a much longer period, but it would be nice to think that the élitist group of people were prepared to make sacrifices as well.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the rate of the salary which may be granted to the Comptoller and Auditor General under section 1 of the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act 1957 be increased—

(a) for periods before 1st June 1974 from £16,000 to £16,350 per annum;
(b) for the period of June 1974 from £16,350 to £16,412·64 per annum;
(c) for the period of July 1974 from £16,412·64 to £16,454·40 per annum; and
(d) for later periods from £16,454·40 to £16,475·28 per annum,

and the date from which under subsection (3) of that section, the person now holding that office is entitled to a salary at the said increased rates be 1st January 1974.

PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSIONER (SALARY)

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That the yearly rate of the salary payable to the Parliamentary Commissioner under section 2 of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 be increased—

(a) for periods before 1st June 1974 from £16,000 to £16,350;
(b) for the period of June 1974 from £16,350 to £16,412·64;
(c) for the period of July 1974 from £16,412·64 to £16,454·40; and
(d) for later periods from £16,454·40 £16,475·28,

and the date from which this Resolution is to take effect be 1st January 1974.—[Mr. Sheldon.]

REHABILITATION OF OFFENDERS BILL

Lords Amendments considered.

Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 8

DEFAMATION ACTIONS

Lords Amendment: No. 35, in page 11, line 4, leave out 'words' and insert matter'.

4.8 a.m.

Mr. Piers Dixon: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): With this amendment we shall consider the following:
No. 36, in page 11, line 4, leave out "tending to show" and insert "imputing".
No. 38, in page 11, line 8, leave out from "shall" to "an" in line 9 and insert "affect".
No. 39, in page 11, line 14, leave out "(6)".
No. 42, in page 11, line 25, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
(5) A defendant in any such action shall not by virtue of subsection (3) above, be entitled to rely upon the defence of justification if the publication is proved to have been made with malice.
No. 43, in page 11, line 40, leave out subsection (6).
No. 44, in page 12, line 3, leave out "at liberty" and insert "entitled".
No. 45, in page 12, line 6, leave out "words" and insert "matter".
No. 46, in page 12, line 7, leave out from "proceedings" to end of line 12 and insert:
if it is proved that the publication contained a reference to evidence which was ruled to be inadmissable in the proceedings by virtue of section 4(1) above.
No. 47, in page 12, leave out line 21.
No. 48, in page 12, line 26, leave out subsection (9).
No. 49, in page 12, line 40, leave out subsection (10).
No. 50, in page 13, line 1, leave out subsection (11).
and No. 51, in page 13, line 26, leave out "tending to show" and insert "imputing".

Mr. Leon Brittan: I should like to express a grave note of reservation about the defamation amendments. As the House will be aware, this is perhaps the most controversial part of the Bill and it has been subjected already to substantial amendment both here and in another place.
The basis of the objection is that if the Bill were passed in its original form it would not be possible to tell the truth about a person covered by the Bill and such a person would be entitled to bring proceedings for defamation, and the defence of justification, that the words written or spoken were true, would not be available to a defendant in such proceedings.
When that became apparent, a substantial and strong body of opinion took exception to the implications for the law of libel. Indeed, one of the most significant representations against this part of the Bill came from the interim report especially issued by the Faulks Committee appointed to consider and look into the whole question of the reform of the law of libel. The relevant passage of that interim report reads:
We view with disfavour the creation by the Bill of a special class of person about whom truth cannot be safely told after a specified period. We think it is in the public interest that truth should at all times remain a defence to actions for defamation. It is in our view wrong that a man about whom the truth is told should be entitled to damages on that account. Where it is unfair and not in the public interest to tell the truth about a person a publisher can be charged with criminal libel".
That was a most authoritative report, and I suggest that the House should think carefully about the implications of legislation in this branch of the law at precisely the time when a committee has been appointed to consider the whole matter.
As has been said in debate elsewhere, it will not be easy to persuade people of prominence and distinction to serve on committees of this kind if while they are deliberating Parliament, by a side wind, legislates on the subject matter that they are considering and on which they are to report in due course. It is not merely the Faulks Committee that has objected to the proposition that a person should be able

to sue for libel and it should not be a defence in the circumstances of the Bill to say that the words spoken or written were true. A whole body of opinion involved in matters of this kind rose against these provisions as one man; the Society of Authors, the Publishers' Association, the newspapers and many prominent in defamation law protested most vigorously at the suggestion that the traditional defence, that what has been said is no more and no less than the truth, should be ended by the Bill.
As a result of the protests, an amendment was put forward in this House making it possible to defeat a defence of justification in the circumstances prescribed by the Bill if, and only if, one were able to show that the publication of the words complained of was not in the public interest.
4.15 a.m.
The House of Lords has decided that provision and has introduced instead a provision that a defendant in an action covered by the Bill will be entitled to rely on the defence of justification if the publication is proved to have been made with malice. The concept of malice is, of course, one that has long stood in the law of defamation. To defeat a defence of fair comment or qualified privilege where such defences run, the plaintiff has to prove that the defendant was actuated by express malice; but to introduce the concept of malice in these circumstances to the defence of justification would, I suggest, be a great complication and a novel departure in this branch of the law.
Anyone who has ever been involved in proceedings in which a plea of malice is tried will know that there is no possible complication in the law of defamation which is more prone and more likely to lead to complexities, prolixities and difficulties of one kind or another, both in the trial itself and usually—or at least often—subsequently on appeal.
I suggest, therefore, that the provision that the defence of justification in the circumstances covered by the Bill should lie but that it should be possible to defeat that defence by a plea of malice is one which is calculated not to simplify the law but rather to complicate it. It is one that amounts to a cutting-down of the traditional defence of justification, of proving that what one has said is true


and of enabling in certain circumstances a person not merely to be protected from disclosure of his past but actually to recover damages from someone who has said what is no more than the plain and unadulterated truth.
I suggest that that would be a most dangerous course to apply and that it would be preferable for the Lords amendment not to be passed and instead for the defamation clause, in so far as it relates to the defence of justification, to be deleted.
I appreciate that the circumstances are difficult in the sense that we are debating this matter at a very late—or very early—hour indeed at the end of the Session towards what may be the end of a Parliament. Those, however, are not factors which are of the making of those who take the view that we take, and it should not have been beyond the wit or the responsibility of those who sponsored the Bill so to arrange matters that it was possible for it to be considered at leisure and for the alternatives to be considered by the House of Lords if this House prefers the course that I am suggesting.
However, that has not been done, and as it has not been done I think it would be wrong for us to refrain from expressing our view as to the propriety or otherwise of depriving a defendant of the defence of justification merely because the consequence of pressing that point might possibly be unfortunate for the rest of the Bill which is not something to which those of us speaking on this matter take exception.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before the Minister replies, may I say that I think it is understood that it is only Lords Amendment No. 42 which is in dispute. I suggest that it might be easier if we were to dispose of Lords Amendments Nos. 35, 36, 38 and 39 at this point.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 42, in page 11, line 25, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
(5) A defendant in any such action shall not by virtue of subsection (3) above, be entitled to rely upon the defence of justification if the publication is proved to have been made with malice.

Mr. Dixon: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon): I ask the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) not to press this amendment. Whatever the merits of the argument about this part of the Bill, to press the amendment now when it may be that the result would be to wreck the Bill, which has been through both Houses twice, would, in my view, be retrograde. It is unfortunate that in the course of the parliamentary year it would not be possible thoroughly to discuss this amendment and give it consideration separate from consideration on the whole of the Bill.
That is the fact. I want to put on record the background of the Bill so that the hon. Member may see what would happen. This Bill was conceived by a committee of Justice chaired by the greatest living expert on defamation, Lord Gardiner. The committee was unanimous that, in addition to the protection which the Bill would ensure for all who had lived down their previous convictions, it was essential that the law of defamation should be changed so that someone could not go round and undermine the central provisions of the Bill by telling other people about a previous conviction which was long since dead.
The freedom which is now claimed by those who oppose the provision, the great constitutional principle which is supported, is that someone should have the right, after a man has lived down his past, to be able to bring that up maliciously, to do him damage at a later stage and thereby undermine the central protection which the Bill gives. I supported the view expressed by the Justice committee that truth alone should never be a defence in those circumstances. But I recognised that this was a novel change in the law. It is not unknown to law throughout most of Europe, and a good part of Australia and America. There there is already a defence of public interest to claims of this kind, so that, in addition to truth, a defendant has to show that the disclosure was published in the public interest, to help the public, in cases where a man has lived down his past.
This was a novel step, and, recognising that, I moved in Committee, when this Bill came through the House on the second occasion, that the defence of justification should not be available unless it also showed that the publication of a man's previous convictions was in the public interest as well. Since this Bill left this House and went to the Lords there has been a campaign waged against it, mainly in the columns of The Times, by those who oppose the principle.
Basically, those who opposed it were people who were either on the Faulks Committee or associated with people who were on that committee. The Faulks Committee has taken the view that justification should be a defence in defamation at all stages, for all purposes. That is perfectly understandable. All I have said is that I do not accept that it ought to apply in relation to previous convictions lived down by a man still alive. That is what the House must recognise.
Anyone—authors, journalists, historians—is entitled to disclose the spent conviction in cases where a man is dead. That is not what we are arguing. What we are arguing about is when a man is still alive and has lived down his past and done all that he could to overcome the disgrace of what he did. Is it right that someone should later be able to undermine all that by disclosing it to the public in a way that will harm him?
There is a balance of interests here between the freedom of speech of those who claim that they can talk about it and those arguing for the man who has done all he can to live down his past. The balance ought to be allowed so that a court can decide whether it is in the public interest that this true fact may be disclosed again, to the harm of the man who is rehabilitated. The House of Lords took that view. What it said was that the fact the public interest defence would have to be proved by the defendant was going too far. Therefore, the House of Lords changed it, saying that the plaintiff—the rehabilitated person, the man who had lived down his previous conviction—would have to prove in an action for defamation that the defendant had been malicious.
In publishing these facts the difference in fact for newspapers may not be very great since the burden will be on the

plaintiff to prove, rather than on the defendant to disprove. Therefore, a man who has lived down his past would have to come to court and say "It is true I had a previous conviction, but I have lived it down, and the defendant has raised it again for his own personal interest." That matter would have to be decided by a jury.
It seems to me that the better balance was the one I advocated in Committee. I would have preferred to leave the matter there. If we had the opportunity, I might have considered moving against the amendment moved in the upper House, but I recognise that on a Bill such as that which is before us, which is an experiment and which is controversial, some balance of view has to be acceded to and one has to give a little. Therefore, I am prepared to accept the amendment. But the upper House, having dealt with that point, came to a unanimous view on Third Reading, which was unopposed that the Bill was an excellent Bill and should be supported in this House. It had the support of all those who were critical of it when it first went to the upper House. It was supported on Third Reading by Lord Gardiner, ex-Lord Chancellor, and sponsor of the Bill; by Lord Dilhorne, an ex-Lord Chancellor, who was the main critic of the Bill in the upper House; and particularly by Lord Elwyn-Jones, the present Lord Chancellor. It was also supported by Lord Diplock, who moved an amendment to insert malice rather than the defence of public interest. Lord Diplock is no mean contender in defamation. It was supported by Lord Salmon, and by Lord Simon, who had been critical of the Bill at an early stage. It was also supported by Lord Hodson. Therefore, four Lords of Appeal supported the Third Reading of the Bill.
The Bill also received the support of Lord Goodman, who, in addition to being a libel expert, is Chairman of the Newspaper Publishers' Asociation, which had been critical of the Bill in its early stages. Furthermore, it was supported by Lord Colville on behalf of the Conservative Front Bench. Therefore, I think it would be wrong for the hon. Gentleman to force his amendment to a Division, which might have the result of killing a Bill that is widely supported.
The position is such that the plaintiff would have to prove that the defendant was malicious, but it means that a man


would not have all his efforts wrecked by some tittle-tattle in a newspaper long after the man has lived down the disgrace of his past. For that reason I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman will reflect before he presses the amendment to a Division.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: May I ask the Minister this before he concludes? May I first declare an interest: I practise at the Bar. Will the effect of dividing on this clause destroy the Bill for this Session or not? If it will destroy the Bill for this Session, it follows that it is an important, fundamental aspect of the Bill. What is the position about disclosure during the course of a criminal trial? Let us suppose that I am defending someone in whose interest it is to draw a distinction between himself and his co-accused, who has a good character within the definition in this Bill but has a bad character compared with that of my client. The Minister's reaction to that kind of situation will very much dictate my reaction to what he has said.

4.30 a.m.

Mr. Lyon: I can assist the hon. Gentleman easily. In Committee I took out all the references to a criminal trial on the basis that the Bill might be difficult to operate within the context of a criminal trial. But I undertook that the Lord Chief Justice would issue a practice direction which would apply the spirit of the Bill to a criminal trial and that equally we in the Home Office would issue a circular for the help and guidance of magistrates' courts, which would also apply it. But it would be flexible, and it would still be possible for a previous conviction, even though spent, to be used in the context in which the hon. Gentleman referred to it. It would not be a statutory bar, as it would be in other areas. Therefore, this discussion does not affect the issue which the hon. Gentleman has been discussing.
When the hon. Gentleman says that if this is pressed to a Division and that, in effect, were to kill the Bill and therefore this must be an important part of the Bill, may I point out to him that if he merely proposed to move one full-stop and a comma and the House divided on his proposition, that would kill the Bill. It is not the quality of the amendment that matters. If there was a Division

and at this hour there was not a quorum in that Division, that would kill the Bill.
If this Bill were coming on at a normal time of the day, the hon. Gentleman would be able to exercise his parliamentary right to divide the House if he so wished. But if he divides the House at this hour of the night, he will kill a Bill which has been through both Houses of Parliament twice and has now won the assent even of its leading critics in the House of Lords, and that would be regrettable at this stage. I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw.

Mr. Dixon: I was interested in what my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) said. I think that the Minister has answered the legal and other points which my hon. Friend raised. But I want to comment on what my hon. Friend said about the lack of proper consideration which had been given to the Bill.
I think that hon. Members on both sides of this House and of the other place will acknowledge that probably there has been no Private Member's Bill which, either in its present form or under previous sponsorship, has gone through such a thorough examination. The sponsors of this Bill and the sponsors of its earlier manifestations have constantly listened to the views of hon. Members, especially those of Opposition Members. Certainly they have listened to the views of the Faulks Committee and others.
All the way along the line, ground has been given. With the positive encouragement of the sponsors, the Government introduced a public interest defence. Further along the line, in another place, there was the amendment which we are now considering and which was in effect a further giving of ground. Perhaps it is not perfect. But we live in a world of realities. We are all sensible men and women, and clearly there must be an element of compromise.
No piece of private legislation has been given such a very thorough study, and I invite my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) to consider this factor. It has been deeply considered and an enormous amount of ground has been given. I can only repeat that if my hon. Friend presses this matter to a Division he will be in danger of ruining the Bill completely.

Mr. Brittan: I do not think that I used the word "precipitate", but the fact that we are debating an important aspect of an important Bill at 4.35 in the morning at this time of the year is perhaps an indication that the House has not had an opportunity to consider the Bill in the way that it ought to consider it.
With respect and deference to all that has been said, I think that it would be possible to produce an equal panoply of talent to that which has fallen from the lips of the Minister of people who oppose what is being done by the Bill, even in its amended form. However, I shall not detain the House by doing so, because no useful purpose would be served by trying to produce a competing list of names.
I do not think that in principle the fact that the Bill may or may not fall should be used in terrorem to prevent one putting forward changes which one genuinely and sincerely thinks are desirable. I remain unconvinced that a fundamental change in the law of libel is called for in the form that has been made. I do not find the reasons that have been advanced either cogent or convincing.
There is, however, one further factor to which I should refer. We have heard a lot of talk about the Faulks Committee and its report. I hope that the report will come before us soon and that it will contain recommendations which will be incorporated in a Bill which will be put before the House. I have little doubt that such a Bill could include an amendment to this legislation which would have the effect of restoring the law of defamation to what it has been in the past and to what the Faulks Committee in its interim report indicated that it should remain.
For that reason, and that reason alone, and as I do not object to the rest of the Bill, I do not propose to press the matter to a Division.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Harper.]

AFRICA (DETAINED BRITISH CITIZENS)

4.38 a.m.

Mrs. Jill Knight: Many hon. Members have in recent months put down Parliamentary Questions about British citizens imprisoned in African countries, notably in Malawi, Zambia and Tanzania. I think that this is the first adjournment debate on the subject, but the plethora of Parliamentary Questions and this debate underline the growing concern about this matter that now exists on both sides of the House.
The hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) raised the question of Mr. Andrew Petrie imprisoned in Zambia, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) raised the question of Mr. Miles, also imprisoned in Zambia, my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Mr. King) raised the question of Mr. Coles imprisoned in Zambia and in the last Parliament my then hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk, Mr. Soref, raised the question of Mr. Percy Cleaver imprisoned in Tanzania, and my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) raised the question of Mr. and Mrs. Mackay who were imprisoned in Malawi.
No one would criticise any country for taking action against criminals or wrongdoers. That is not what I seek to this Adjournment debate, and it is not what any hon. Member would seek to do. What concerns us all is that so many of these people are held under local laws which permit prisoners to be kept without charge or trial for many months. Mr. Andrew Petrie was so held, and so were Mr Miles and Mr. Coles after being most savagely beaten up for no offence whatsoever by what my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South called thugs in the Zambian Army.
Mr. Percy Cleaver was held for 11 months without trial and when the trial was held it was carried out in secret. I do not know whether it is known why Mr. Percy Cleaver has been sentenced to three years' imprisonment, but certain it is that he waited a long time before the charge against him was heard.
Mr. and Mrs. Mackay were held for nine months in Malawi on a Presidential detention order of indefinite duration. Finally, they were tried for having three books that were banned in Malawi. I do


not know what those books were, but I bet that they were not "Clockwork Orange" or "Forever Amber" I wonder whether persons going into Malawi are told that the Government feel that possession of certain books is such a serious matter that anyone having them will be thrown into prison for as long as this married couple were ordered to be detained.
When the trial came on, Mr. and Mrs. Mackay pleaded guilty. Indeed, there was little else for them to do. They were fined £200 and sent to prison. It was an incredibly heavy fine and long sentence for such a crime. I gather that the alternative to paying the fine of £200 was for both to serve another nine months' imprisonment.
It was only yesterday morning that I received a letter from a lady who lives in Bulawayo. She writes as follows:
My husband, Peter Jack, has been detained, by special order in Chichire Prison, near Blantyre since April 24th and I do not know, at this time, if, or when, he will be released. … My letter may not be of any assistance to my husband but I hope it may make the British authorities aware of current trends in Malawi and possibly prevent other British nationals from a similar 'fate'.
My husband is a professional man being an ACCA and FCIS and is a very honest man. Indeed, he is quite aware that to knowingly become involved in misdemeanours he could not only forfeit his position, but his qualifications as well. His position is that of Director of a property holding group and he is a Rhodesian resident.
although he is a Britisher.
Approximately three years ago he was asked to sort out the Malawian affairs of a trading company owned by the holding group, and subsequently visited Malawi on several occasions to do this. …
In January 1974 we were informed that the Malawian police had raided the company and the home of the Rhodesian manager and his wife. All their personal effects, such as letters and passports were confiscated and the Malawian CID stated that my husband was to proceed to Blantyre to assist them. …
On Tuesday 23rd April he was asked to go again to Blantyre and to sign there for the passports of the manager and his wife, which would then be returned to them. I was concerned for my husband's safety but he stated he was not afraid to go again to Blantyre, as he had not … done anything wrong.
He proceeded to Malawi on April 24th, was arrested and detained by special order, no charges being laid. … The authorities continued to detain the manager and my husband in Chichire prison and said they would be held

'indefinitely' if the managing director did not also proceed to Malawi.
It then seems that the managing director did go to Malawi and was imprisoned as well. This lady says
The charge of late share registration was later dropped and the managing director released within three days of his detention. He seems to be of the opinion that this was due to the intervention of the South African authorities but the British High Commission were unable to help my husband. The latter alarmed me … Subsequently I received a letter from the Foreign Office informing me that detention without trial was quite legal in Malawi.
This lady goes on to say
For myself, I commend the British High Commission in Malawi, particularly a Mr. W. Jones who has spared no effort to help us and who has both tried to speed up matters and obtained medical treatment for my husband who has a duodenal ulcer. I am aware that things must be rather difficult for the British High Commission at this time, as several persons have been deported.
Certainly British nationals should be discouraged from accepting employment in Malawi at present.
The letter continues:
Wives, and even teenagers, have been detained in Chichire, which is a far from pleasant experience. Unfortunately, the Malawian police have open disrespect for Britain, saying they can 'do what they like' to British people without rebuke. I hope that Britain will soon take a firmer line with these emerging States.
This lady goes on to say that she has worked with African people for many years and is rather fond of them, but she is upset at what is happening—and what is happening to her husband, as he has been in prison for so long and she apparently has no way of knowing when he is to be released.
Then there was the case very recently which brought this whole situation to my notice—the case of Mrs. Sue Farrow. Hon. Members will know that this quite young lady is the wife of a man who is in Malawi as a technician with the post office. She criticised one of Dr. Banda's speeches. She did this during the morning—I gather that she worked part-time—and was told that she would be reported. She immediately apologised, but they came for her at 3.30 that afternoon and took her away. She had to leave her children. She was not allowed to telephone the British High Commission. When she asked the people who had taken her away about the Geneva Convention,


they said that Malawi was not a signatory to the Geneva Convention and that she had no right to ask to see the British High Commissioner whatsoever.
Mrs. Farrow was thrown into a filthy prison. She was told that she would be there for 28 days. However, she was released the next day. While there she saw other British prisoners but was not allowed to speak to them. She had a brief conversation with one man who just had time to tell her that he was from Richmond—though whether it was the Richmond in Yorkshire or in Surrey she did not know—before he was taken away.
Mrs. Farrow spent an appalling night. I shall not burden the House with the details of that night, but I know that it is one that will never clear from her memory. She was desperately worried about her children. I do not doubt that she also had some reservations about her own safety. However, she was taken out the next day and given 24 hours to leave Malawi. She tells me that air mail from the country is censored and she said that it has been made clear by the Malawian Government that if the friends of anyone who is at present in prison should contact Amnesty International the sentences will be increased and if any Briton is arrogant—that is the word; arrogance is apparently a great sin—that Briton will be deported. She states that white people are being increasingly badly treated in Malawi.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Money) and I questioned the Minister as to what representations have been made to the Malawian authorities about Mrs. Farrow's case. My hon. Friend and I were astounded to learn that no representations have been made. Later I learned from the reply to a Parliamentary Question that 84 British citizens are imprisoned in Africa. I am not arguing for those who have committed crimes, wherever they may be. I am most certainly arguing for those who have not committed crimes, in whatever part of Africa they may be. Some of those 84—indeed, the majority of them—have been charged and tried and are serving sentences. It is the others with whom I am concerned.
Is it not possible for this country as the head of the Commonwealth to bring pressure to bear on these countries, which

are members of the Commonwealth? This is a blatant denial of the most basic human right of all—the right of freedom. As early as 1948 the Universal Declaration of Human Rights stated in Article 13(1) that
everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each State.
Article 13(2) referred to
the right of everyone to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.
These broadly stated standards are bolstered by the prohibition in Article 9 against arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
On 16th December 1966 the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the Optional Protocol to the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Article 12 of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights provides, inter alia:
Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State shall, within that territory, have the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence.
That is clear enough.
Health organisations condemn and deplore what is going on in Africa, and I on behalf of the British people who are held there condemn and deplore what is going on. I strongly resent the fact that these people have been held for months or years without trial or charge and that successive British Governments apparently have done little to stop it.
On the passport with which a United Kingdom citizen travels abroad there appear some famous words:
Her Britannic Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs requests and requires in the name of Her Majesty all those whom it may concern to allow the bearer to pass freely without let or hindrance …".
Those are, perhaps, florid words, but they are fine words and their meaning is perfectly clear. Those who carry British passports might well say that they are empty words when they look from the wrong side of a Malawian prison.
Is it not possible for the Government to point out these things to Dr. Nyerere, Dr. Banda and Dr. Kaunda? If they will not listen to justice and reason, is it unreasonable to consider that we might cut off the aid which Britain extends to them?
On 27th June the Minister of Overseas Development told the House—column 541—that the new aid programme to Malawi should be not less than £15 million and not more than £18 million. According to a Written Answer in column 564 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of 28th June this year, grants and loans in 1973 to Tanzania totalled £222,200, and in the same year the figures for Zambia were £5,500,000 in grants and £2,147,000 in loans. Why should we fund these countries when they treat our people so? The British Government must take action and make it clear that British citizens cannot be imprisoned without incurring the just wrath and effective censure of Britain.

4.56 a.m.

Mr. Ernle Money: I am grateful for the opportunity to intervene briefly as Mrs. Farrow is the daughter of a constituent of mine.
I should like to put three specific points, and, although I am sorry that the Under-Secretary has been kept here till this late hour. I hope that she will be able to give her attention to these matters because they are of deep concern.
First, are the High Commissions in countries like Malawi making it clear to the Governments of those countries that if an arbitrary arrest, albeit legal under local law, is made in this way, the British Government expect it to be drawn to the attention of the High Commissions at the earliest possible opportunity? No one was allowed to see Mrs. Farrow. She said:
No one was allowed to see me and my husband didn't even know where I was. It was a terrible time and when the High Commission did find out they immediately tried to secure my release but the Malawi authorities refused to let anyone see me.
This is a basic requirement, which the High Commission must insist upon. If a British citizen is arrested, he must be provided with legal aid and other assistance.
The second matter which I want to raise concerns the circumstances under which British citizens are being kept in prison for offences of this sort for which they have not been tried. Are the High Commissions insisting sufficiently that the conditions in prisons like the prison at Chichire are humane and reasonable? Mrs. Farrow said that she was allowed three filthy blankets and was put into the

women's compound which had a small yard and two rooms which housed 30 women prisoners and a number of children. She added:
There were no beds or chairs or furniture, just two primitive lavatories and a very squalid cold water shower. In fact the lavatories were so awful I didn't know how to use them and one of the other women prisoners had to show me. The whole of the women's compound was filthy and it stank. Lice were crawling all over the place and I was bitten very badly on my arms.
One pays tribute to the work of the High Commissions, to the diplomatic and consular officials abroad, for working in difficult circumstances, but it is a question of the extent to which the Government are prepared to back them. When people are expelled in these circumstances something must be done to protect their interests.
Thirdly, the Farrows lost everything they had. Their goods were confiscated or lost and they had to borrow more than £800 to pay their fare home, having been turned out of the country which was their home at two days' notice.

4.59 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Miss Joan Lestor): The concern which has been expressed by the hon. Lady the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) is shared by all hon. Members in this House. As the hon. Lady said, our concern is not so much for those people who had been tried and imprisoned for offences which have been proved as for those United Kingdom citizens who are imprisoned in parts of Africa before they have been charged and tried.
It is important to point out also that those of us here who are accustomed to the concept of British law whereby in normal circumstances—I stress that, and I shall return to it later—a person must be charged with and tried for an alleged offence and that his guilt must be proved in court beyond all reasonable doubt find it difficult, if not impossible, to believe that that is not a concept which is universally recognised. But, as we all know, it is not.
I have discussed this matter with many people in Zambia and in other parts of Africa and I share the concern that United Kingdom citizens should be caught up in this mesh of legislation and


be denied what we have long considered to be basic human rights as we have known them in this country.
For many years Ministers of both Governments have taken every opportunity to discuss this problem at the very highest level with the responsible Ministers of the countries concerned. In passing, I should add that there are detained in Rhodesia at this moment a large number of people who are the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government but for whom Her Majesty's Government are not in a strong position to make any positive representations, although we do what we can to draw the attention of the illegal régime in Southern Rhodesia to what they are doing. I assume that the hon. Lady the Member for Edgbaston and the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Money) were referring to those people as well as to many others.
Our missions abroad have a duty—I assure the hon. Gentleman that they take it seriously—to do all in their power, whatever the provisions of the local law, to press that United Kingdom citizens are brought as speedily as possible to trial if there are charges to be answered, or else released. Governments have been left in no doubt about our concern and about our attitude towards detention without prospect of trial. But in the final analysis there is little that we can do. Although she presented a very concerned case on behalf of these people, the hon. Lady made only one positive suggestion as to a way in which we might bring pressure to bear. I shall come back to that in a moment.
We have to understand, as people who come from abroad to live in Britain have to understand, that when we live in another country we have to accept its laws. This is a fact of life. It is a fact of international life, and, however unpleasant it may be for those who have different rules and a different judicial system, we have to adhere to it.
I remind the House also that colonial rule itself, backed with all the power of the British Empire, not so long ago used detention without trial consistently and not rarely, in the countries which are now so early in their development after independence.
have already said that we all deplore this practice in normal circumstances. But

in Northern Ireland, for example, unusual circumstances have forced British Governments to impose detention without trial and to continue it. We have said, as did the previous Conservative Government, that this is essential to safeguard the innocent. We have argued that people must be detained, even though one cannot bring evidence and take them to trial because others are afraid to testify, and so on, and it has been argued strongly in the House that detention without trial in Northern Ireland is essential in order to protect innocent people and because of the need to protect the community against the activities of a minority. I shall not comment on it, but that argument has been used.

Mrs. Knight: Surely the hon. Lady is not equating Mrs. Farrow, the Mackays and the others I mentioned with IRA-connected suspects. Does she put them in context with the distribution of bombs in cars, with people being blown up and the rest of it? The situation in Northern Ireland is entirely different from the circumstances about which we have been talking.

Miss Lestor: The point I make to the hon. Member is that when it has suited us—I am not proposing to argue whether it is right or wrong—we have used detention without trial. The hon. Member for Edgbaston says that offenders in Northern Ireland are likely to cause damage and destruction, and, therefore, we must adopt this policy. Whether she accepts it or not, that is exactly the position of the African countries.
I agree that Mrs. Farrow was never likely to commit acts of violence against anybody, but when we raise these matters the question of Northern Ireland is thrown up at us. The hon. Member says there is not a situation of war in any of these territories. We do not claim to be at war in Northern Ireland. In Zambia and other countries there have been bomb attempts—for example, at State House—and in Tanzania the President of FRELIMO was murdered. Africa, too, therefore, is in a sense in a state of war. These African countries are at war with external enemies. White supremists in the South are determined to overthrow some of the independent African régimes, or at least that is how the Africans see it.
These countries are fighting against tribalism which could undermine a new nation before it develops to full nationhood or before it has established the full processes of law and order. At the same time they are wielding a tremendous battle against poverty. We defend detention without trial in Northern Ireland for the reasons outlined by the hon. Member for Edgbaston, and countries like Zambia and Tanzania have their reasons for adopting these policies. We cannot get people to give evidence against possible offenders, and they probably face the same difficulty. They make mistakes, as we have made mistakes in Northern Ireland. It is the accepted system of law and order in those countries, and we must accept their system if we go there.

Mr. Money: The hon. Lady is being drawn away too much on to a general statement of fairly controversial points without dealing with the specific concern we have expressed. No one can suggest that people like Mrs. Farrow are involved

in political offences. I want an assurance that respectable people like Mrs. Farrow who get involved in the mesh of the police background of an African State will have everything done to protect their interests.

Miss Lestor: The hon. Member for Edgbaston quite rightly referred to declarations of human rights which I completely accept, but there is another side to this issue. I will not get drawn off the particular cases. Perhaps I may deal with them in a moment. The hon. Lady raised the question of objections in principle to detention without trial. On the question of Mrs. Farrow—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Tuesday evening and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjorned accordingly at eight minutes past Five o'clock a.m.